[Zoobank-list] general principles of the ZooBank

Wed Jul 1 15:10:10 BST 2009

Dear Nikita,

With all respect, I dissent from your appraisal in the following points:

>The main problem of the present version of the 
>ZooBank, is that its compilers do not believe 
>that idea, for the sake of which the ICZN 
>exists. I need to remember them, that this idea 
>is to "ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct".

The compilers of the ZooBank and all the 
Commissioners believe in the Code and in the use 
of the "binominal nomenclature" as the main means 
to ensure that every animal on Earth receives a 
single, unique and distinct name. However, we 
cannot impose this to users of zoological 
nomenclature, who are still producing homonyms 
and useless descriptions of taxa. Our goal would 
be, if well understood, that there would be no 
need of a Code, but we are working with a backlog 
of 250 years of either absence or of misuse of the Codes.

>In the ZooBank, individuality of each taxon name 
>is ensured by a special combination of numbers 
>and letters, named "Life Sciences Identifier", 
>which is regarded to be the "globally unique 
>identifier for this data item". In order to 
>create a globally unique identifier for each 
>species, generic and family name, zoologists had 
>to elaborate a very composite Code; this work 
>took two centuries and is far from its finish; 
>the Code is permanently verified by all 
>zoologists of the World by using many millions 
>names, that helps to understand its advantages 
>and shortcomings. Now somebody decides to do the 
>same work with the LSID, and hopes to do it 
>alone and very quickly. The idea to make 
>identifiers consisted of numbers, is not new. 
>Linnaeus, when worked on his "Species 
>Plantarum", tried to do the same, but 
>understood, what this was not a good way, and 
>created the better identifiers system - the 
>binary nomenclature. The LSID is much less 
>powerful, than the numbers which Linnaeus tried
>  to use; such LSID can be used for a small, 
> private, temporary database only.

I cannot see any problem: I have my name and also 
an identity card with a number unique for me in 
my country. It is useful also to detect 
unexpected homonymies (or pseudo-homonymies). The 
main goal of the ZooBank is not replacing names 
with LSIDs, is to record names, while giving an 
identity card number to them. Do you know how 
many people with my name shall have existed in my 
country in the last 250 years? And how many will 
come? So any help until all these names are 
recorded is welcome, and helpful. When we are 
sure that all names are in ZooBank, and all 
authors are completely registered and univocally 
identified (do you know how many zoologists are 
named Alonso in Spanish-speaking countries?), and 
all papers/books relevant for nomenclature have 
been identified (and better if open-access 
digitalized), then we can think about getting rid of LSIDs.

>The Code, in its modern condition, allows to 
>identify each species name, if use its "girl's 
>surname" (i.e., primary binomen) and allows to 
>identify each genus- and family-group name, if 
>use its universal form. For details, see the 
>text in 
>http://www.insecta.bio.pu.ru/z/Eph-spp/XII-Int-Conf-Eph.htm 
>about the database "Ephemeroptera of the World". 
>This database is the first one, which can exist 
>unlimitedly long time. If we want to create a 
>permanent ZooBank, we must base it on the same 
>principles. Using really unique taxa names based 
>on the Code, we can accumulate data from many 
>databases created by many people in the world, 
>instead of the modern situation, when numerous 
>small groups (such as GBIF, ITIS, uBio and many 
>others) make numerous separated incomplete databases, repeating one another.

Regarding ZooBank, I am in the ranks of those who 
think that registration should be previous and 
mandatory for all kind of nomenclatural issues: 
names and acts (including here combinations). But 
I also firmly believe that it is not the 
commitment of the Commission to register 
taxonomic issues (synonymies, systematic 
position, links to keys and descriptions, etc.). 
This should be the goal for the webs of worldwide 
Taxonomic Societies. Just a few have started to 
do this. Ours is a different goal: to give an 
authoritative source for names regarding: 
availability, validity other than that on 
taxonomic grounds, original source, secondary 
sources for combinations, keys, descriptions, 
maps, etc. I agree with you that it is a pity and 
a waste that so many international initiatives 
are competing and losing time and money in these 
efforts, seemingly so egoistic. But the 
Commission is not in this game and our goal is 
limited to what I have said above (availability, etc.).

>The database ZooBank should include all 
>nomenclatural acts (new names, type 
>designations, suppressions of names) and provide 
>a space for references about any 
>non-nomenclatural acts (various opinions about 
>subjective synonymy, binomens, systematic 
>position, status, redescriptions, etc.). If use 
>general principles elaborated by me for the 
>"Ephemeroptera of the World", this can be really 
>done, and will not take big financial support 
>(the "Ephemeroptera of the World", which is much 
>larger than the present prototype ZooBank, have 
>been done without any finances at all).

I know your work and I congratulate you for your 
exceeding effort and success, and also I 
congratulate myself that Science has that tool of 
yours in its hands.  However, we are looking for 
funding for ZooBank and we are pushing the 
presentation of Official Lists to become the 
basis of ZooBank. We will act them as certificate 
name providers for the scientific community (and nothing else, that's enough).

>Concerning the discussion about "Registration", I suggest the following way:
>
>1) We must elaborate principles of the 
>comprehensive and permanent electronic 
>catalogue, which would allow to create a really useful ZooBank (see above).
>
>2) Using these principles, we must create such 
>ZooBank, which would include all recently 
>existed nomenclatural acts (or at least all 
>nomenclatural acts published till the last year).
>
>3) If this work will be done (probably, it will 
>take several years), we can return to the 
>discussion about "Registration"; if we will be 
>unable to do this work, we have no rights to speak about any registration.
>
>This is the single possible way, because (1) old 
>names create much more nomenclatural problems, 
>than newly published names (even status of many 
>names from Linnaeus 1758 is still unclear!); (2) 
>if ICZN is unable to create a really working 
>database, where names could be registered, it is 
>useless to discuss relationship between registration and availability.
>

We are trying to create a useful ZooBank, we are 
not joking. However, its use must depend upon 
what tasks are assigned to it by the Code. We 
know that this task will take several years, and 
preparing a sound basis of names via the Official 
Lists will require the work of many taxonomists 
that believe really in the Code and in the 
paradigm of a "single name for each single 
species". However, there are lots of taxonomists 
working for their own benefit, not caring about 
the community, and thinking that preparing such 
Lists is a waste of their precious time. I think 
as well that in a given moment, registration 
should start towards the future while we fill the 
holes of the past in ZooBank. Both thingsa re 
complementary, and there is no reason to keep one 
of these stopped while we complete the other. 
Both at the same time is an obvious improvement 
to what we have now (almost nothing). And I do 
not think, therefore, that it is useless to 
discuss relationship between registration and 
availability, I believe firmly in its coupling since the very start.

>
>
>Nikita Kluge
>
>http://www.insecta.bio.pu.ru/kluge-en.htm
>_______________________________________________
>Zoobank-list mailing list
>Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
>http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list

Best wishes,

Miguel

Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Dr)
Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales
Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2
E-28006 Madrid SPAIN
Tlf. +34-914.111.328 ext. 1110
Fax  +34-915.645.078
e-mail:  zarazaga at mncn.csic.es

Visite - visit - visitez - besuchen Sie - opsøge 
- posetite - návativte - látogat - heimsókn - 
visitate - besøk - besoek - wizyta - vizita - visiten - gofwya - zur:
	http://www.fauna-iberica.mncn.csic.es/
	http://www.mncn.csic.es/
	http://www.faunaeur.org/
y - and - et - und - og - i - a - és - en - e - pa - ter - och - u:
	http://wtaxa.csic.es (World Catalogue of Coleoptera Curculionoidea)