|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 17, 2021 18:14:31 GMT
Worthy, R. & G. Lamas 2021. Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, and its name-bearing type (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Entomologist’s Gazette, 72: 173–175. Abstract: A new lectotype designation by Korb (2013) for Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875 is rejected and the previous lectotype designation by Grieshuber, Worthy & Lamas (2006) reinstated. At first glance this short paper just tidies up a nomenclatural problem, but it also addresses a much more serious general issue. I presume bobw will be happy to provide copies for private research purposes on request. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Aug 17, 2021 18:31:13 GMT
Thanks Adam.
If anybody wants a copy, just send me a pm with your email address.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Aug 24, 2021 13:33:20 GMT
Hi Bob, could you please send me the paper ? Thanks : opequin(at)ymail.com
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 31, 2021 8:24:44 GMT
Actually I was pointing to the failure of the peer review system to spot issues, nothing personal at all.
I recently had to publish a paper to correct a similar failure of peer review to spot that the name being applied to a species was unavailable from the original description, something I discovered within a few minutes of receiving a copy of the paper.
Peer review should be solving potential problems before publication - this is my "much more serious general issue".
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 2, 2021 13:57:30 GMT
Adam, thanks for highlighting the paper, and thanks to Bobw for providing it.
The paper is yet another indication to me that ICZN is best left to experts better versed than I. For the expert and professional entomologists, I presume they should know enough to subject publications to peer review, not only by experts in biology and systematics, but in ICZN as well.
Concerning "profound lack of scientific ethics of the paper authors and deep disrespect" it is a trend I've noted.
John Tennent's reviews of D'Abrera works are an example. John held nothing back.
More recently, Scott & Guppy are quite transparent with their disdain of Hammond from word one in Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis species boundaries, News of LepSoc Vol. 63 No. 2. Summer 2021.
I wonder, though, is the backlash for the failed experiment in diplomacy and "politically correct"? I've had plenty of experience trying to use a "beat around the bush" PC approach and get a blank stare. Sometimes saying it succinctly and straight forward works.
As for "deep disrespect", my personal opinion is that when attempts to steer an expert/ author in the proper direction fail, it is a result of said expert/ author refusing peer counsel- an indignant "I don't care" attitude. D'Abrera is probably the best example. Does this merit critics then belittling and personally attacking said offender? I think yes- there are many, like me, who are not experts; I appreciate being shown, without holding back, where I'm being rudely and/or intentionally misinformed. I can't see through the faulty work, the obfuscation of purported diplomatic ethics; color me stupid, I need it straight and simple.
I was shocked by the lack of PC diplomacy in the Scott & Guppy paper; yet, it became readily apparent to me, thanks to very clear, unrestrained critique, who's been doing shoddy work and shouldn't be trusted. I'll take the facts over an attempt to hide them behind being nice.
Why peer review of ICZN fails is probably similar to the reason Project Management fails: the CORRECT "stakeholders" aren't consulted; rather, authorities are employed for matter of convenience and to get the answer the author/ PM wants. Clearly there ARE experts in taxonomy, systematics, and ICZN- why one would not ask them for peer review is probably a matter of politics or laziness, for which there is no excuse.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Sept 3, 2021 8:06:20 GMT
Peer reviews are instigated not by the authors but by the editors of the journal to which the paper is submitted. Authors will often suggest suitable reviewers well-versed in the subject under discussion, as editors can't be expected to know specialists in every field. Authors will generally get the opinions of other specialists before submission as nobody wants to submit a paper that will be rejected. In theory they could suggest reviewers that will accept the paper without comment, but again, why would they risk their reputation by publishing something that is not up-to-standard. There are, of course, journals that are not peer-reviewed but researchers that aspire to serious work would not generally publish in these, even though any taxonomic acts in these are just as valid. I am regularly asked to review papers and when I recommended that one should be rejected a while ago, the editor agreed with me but told me that it would probably be published in a non peer-reviewed journal; sure enough, this happened a few months later, and several superfluous new names found their way into the system.
Our paper was not intended to be a personal attack on Korb, but to point out the dangers of people who want to publish nomenclatural acts who are not sufficiently well-versed in The Code and do not get the correct advice pre-publication, and, as Hauser and Nekrutenko pointed out, this is not the first time he has done this. There is also a big problem with people introducing new taxonomic acts without listening to anybody else, being absolutely convinced of their own infallibility, and Chuck's two examples are good ones.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Sept 7, 2021 19:45:36 GMT
Quoting the Bible to defend a scientific position is funny... @diogen , you say : "I dont so much like commercial entomology, when subspecies erected just for making money by selling paratypes; this is also far from science" --> I FULLY AGREE but then how can you defend your Parnassius (Koramius) davydovi risto which is a total nonsense ? And they were sold on eBay just after publication and they still are : www.ebay.com/itm/3240133406202 times more expensive than nominate.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 9, 2021 23:55:31 GMT
“ Nomenclature is not a science. It is like an accounting”
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Sept 10, 2021 0:14:44 GMT
“ Nomenclature is not a science. It is like an accounting” Huh?
Taxonomy - In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.
Nomenclature - (UK: /nəˈmɛŋkləˌtʃər/, US: /ˈnoʊmənˌkleɪtʃər/) is a system of names or terms, or the rules for forming these terms in a particular field of arts or sciences. The principles of naming vary from the relatively informal conventions of everyday speech to the internationally agreed principles, rules and recommendations that govern the formation and use of the specialist terms used in scientific and any other disciplines.
He isn't wrong in what he is saying there. He means that nomenclature is a set of rules and conventions rather than a reproducible science.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 10, 2021 8:05:01 GMT
Indeed, the rules of nomenclature govern the application of the names for animals analysed during the science of taxonomy. For animals those rules are defined in the ICZN Code, and there are similar sets of rules for all other forms of life.
Taxonomy is a science, whereas nomenclature applies the relevant rules in order to determine the valid name(s) for the organism(s) studied.
Adam.
|
|