[Zoobank-list] thoughs on ZooBank proposal

[geiger at vetigastropoda.com]

To ZooBank community:

Below are some thoughts on the ZooBank proposal. The text is sent to the list
(and some individuals), as indicated in the original paper (Polaszek et al. 2005.
BZN 62: 210-220). I am not subscribing to the list; if you are interested in any
further comments/replies, please send me a separate e-mail. 
In summary, the principle idea has merit, its proposed implementation has severe
problems at several levels. I am looking forward to a prototype web-site, but one
MUST NOT rush to make such a unproven, yet far-reaching proposal mandatory. 

Best wishes

Daniel Geiger <geiger at vetigastropoda.com>

ZooBank: some consideration.

Peer review
The emphasis on peer review is troubling for several reasons. 1) The BZN is not
embracing peer-review, so why should it be demanded from other taxonomic
publications? 2) Peer-review is not perfect, and is done at levels ranging from
lip-service to rigorous procedure. Are we soon going to see journal accreditation
procedures to be permitted to publish taxonomic acts? This is definitely going
too far, and goes squarely against the nomenclatural principle of freedom of
taxonomic thought. The specter of a thought police is deeply troubling. 3) I am
aware of a long ms, accepted after peer-review, that was then rejected by a
well-known journal because it was too long. The author now is forced to publish
it in a form that, on the surface, does not entail peer-review. Many monographs
are of such form, that it is not even attempted to submit to peer-reviewed
outlets. To remove monographs as places where taxonomic acts are undertaken is
bizarre.
I am aware of Zootaxa for long ms (have been the subject editor for the longest
publication of >1300 pages), but there may be other considerations, such as feuds
between potential author and subject editor, which may come into play. I know of
one such problem, though not with the above mentioned ms.

Expedience
The registration procedure raises the question of timely processing of
submissions. Neither the Zoological Record nor the ICZN have an encouraging track
record.  ZR is well-known for missing articles, and for missing items (e.g., new
species) in indexed publications. It takes several months to get any response
from ICZN secretary regarding submitted cases. Hence, a default mechanism in
favor of the submitter must be in place, such as any submission that is not
reasonably challenged within one week of submission is automatically accepted and
registered. Proposed Art. 16a.3 will be the source of protracted battles ranging
over years, unless a default acceptance mechanism is in place.
Given the lack of track record, the burden is upon ICZN and affiliated entities
to demonstrate to the taxonomic community in a trial period of no less than five
years of voluntary registration that it is up to the task. Annual reports on
timeliness of processing, and a survey of participants as to satisfaction rating
have to be made public. As the volunteer submitters will be the more enthusiastic
supporters of the idea in general, the satisfaction rating must be near perfect
for it to be made mandatory for the all taxonomic authors/acts. Proposed Art.
80.10 must be tightened to include rapid average response times from ICZN as
conditio-sine-qua-non to uphold mandatory registration. All 2007/2008 proposed
cut-off dates must be pushed back to at least 2012/2013.

Registration any help?
Does registration provide any assistance in subsequent monographic treatments or
revisions? This is very doubtful. Although unregistered taxonomic acts may not be
valid, they will still require to be listed and discussed. This is already the
case today (e.g., nomina nuda, invalid lectotype designations, recent
descriptions of infrasubspecific names), hence even with registrations, the
serious taxonomist still has to engage in wide-ranging literature searches.
The applied biologist using names does not and will not care less what system the
“bean counters” are using.

Internal contradictions of proposal.
“ ... assessment or judgment of the taxonomic content ... is not part of ...
ZooBank.” (Polaszek et al. 2005: 210). But “A statement regarding the
availability or unavailability of names will be provided” (Polaszek et al. 2005:
210-211). A statement of availability entails a judgment. “... all names are
checked for compliance with the Code before they are made available” (Polaszek et
al. 2005: 211) also implies some kind of judgment. Proposed Art. 32.2.3 and Art.
83 also imply a judgment with respect to formation of names and acts, as
apparently mal-formed names (e.g., with umlaut) could not be registered. 
Some provisions of the Code are open to interpretation, such as lectotype
designation. Lectotypes should only be designated if they help to stabilize
nomenclature. Some authors/reviewers/editors consider any taxon based on
syntype(s) to harbor the potential of confusion, which should be removed by
lectotype designations. An author may end up in the cross-fire between
reviewer/editor and ICZN in the case of a judgment call. The ICZN is here also
interfering with the principle of freedom of taxonomic thought. 

Stability endangered
Proposed Art. 16a.4 is a source of confusion. A name can be proposed, not
registered for two years, during that period be considered provisionally
available and be used by subsequent authors, fail to be registered after two
years, a new name can be proposed for it, requiring action of the Commission
under Art. 16a.3 (see above on timely processing of ICZN case submissions). The
sources for taxonomic confusions are endless. 
Under proposed Art. 32.2.3. a published name that is mal-formed (e.g., with
umlaut) would eventually differ from a registered name, entailing confusion.
A better system is to have a system similar to GenBank, where
sequences/names/acts are deposited before the work is published, and the
GenBank/ZooBank registration number can be cited in the original publication.
Pre-publication submission names/acts are kept from the public eye. This is also
widely practiced with type repositories, where types are deposited with their
prospective names before the description has been published. Such a proposal was
mentioned by Polaszek et al. (2005: 214, section 3), but curiously is not
implemented in the proposed Articles (e.g., Art. 16a).

Unacceptable burden on editors.
Proposed Recommendation 16aB requests of editors to track registrations of names
after manuscripts have been published in their journals. As a subject editor with
Zootaxa (honorary basis), I have plenty to do with processing manuscripts. I can
not keep track on what happens to names after the manuscripts have been
published. This is an undue burden on an already overstretched job.
Pre-publication registration (see above) could address this issue.

Undue burden on the conscientious taxonomist
With the existing Art. 16a, a bad-apple author can forego the registration
procedure, and the other authors in the field, who track the literature, are then
under the obligation to register the bad-apple author’s acts. Art. 16a encourages
antisocial behavior. Pre-publication registration could address this issue as well.

Excessive registration mania.
The inclusion of “(vi) first inclusion of nominal species in a genus-group taxon”
(Polaszek et al. 2005: 214) as a taxonomic act is strange. Contrary to botany,
new combinations are not denoted with a extension of the taxon’s authority. There
may be issues with secondary homonymy, but the transfer of a species to a
different genus is a subjective opinion (like subjective synonymy) not governed
by the Code. Also “(ix) citation of a type genus of a family-group name published
after 1999” is ambiguous and seems unnecessary. Is the citation published after
1999, or the family-group name published after 1999? As the formation of a
family-group name is mandatorily derived from the root of the type genus with
fixed endings, there is no need to register any such citation.

Copyright and Financing
The goal of having all zoological works available on-line is laudable and lofty.
But what does the reality look like? Zootaxa published 12,677 pages in 2005 with
still rising tendency, the vast majority of which contains some sort of
nomenclatural act. Open access for Zootaxa costs US$20/page. At a 50% discount,
ICZN would have to pay this one journal alone over US$125 K/year. A US$100 M/year
estimate for all taxonomic publications is possibly not too far off the mark. 
The alluded business plan (p. 219) will also require careful consideration. It
should be evident that such an under-funded group of people as taxonomists should
not have to either pay for registration, or for the use of ZooBank. Despite some
highly visible PEET/PBI projects, the majority of taxonomists do not have
excessive funding available.

Proposed Art. 17.2.2 may entail a catch-22. To submit a new species name for
registration, the type specimen must be mentioned. However, some institutions
(e.g., USNM) do not provide type numbers for manuscript names that have not been
accepted for publication, and some institutions (e.g., MNHN) do not assign
registrations numbers to their type specimens. Either reference to supposed types
is so vague as to be meaningless, or the data can not be provided. 

Proposed Art. 22.9. is confusing as it appears that submission = registration,
but elsewhere, registration is only carried out after the submission has been
checked for Code compliance. I have difficulties to see how compliance can be
checked by any sort of artificial intelligence, hence implies human action, so
that registration is later than submission. How can a computer algorithm identify
improperly formed names? Here again the problem with timely processing arises.


*************************************************
Daniel L. Geiger, Ph.D.
Research Curator of Electron Microscopy
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History - Invertebrate Zoology
2559 Puesta del Sol Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
USA

phone (805) 682 4711 x152
fax (805) 563 0574
geiger at vetigastropoda.com
www.vetigastropoda.com