A comment on that Meier (2017) quote.
Meier doesn't distinguish between epithets and binomens in his "Are species names hypotheses?" section, or fails to make the distinction when he talks about 'species names'. It is not correct that "determining the correct species name is a mechanical process". Species names are the binomens, genus plus specific name (the epithet), and determining binomens is not mechanical at all. It is the epithet part of the original name (the basionym) that is constant and immutable (apart from gender-ending tweaks), is linked to the type, and, if still part of a valid name, moves forward over time (together with the original author - which enables tracking back the original description ), although the original genus might be left behind.
Meier: "If multiple specimens in a delimited species-level unit are types, nomenclature sorts out which name has priority, i.e. the naming process is deterministic and not hypothesis-driven." Yes, once one gets to that point, but BEFORE THEN it is necessary to have hypotheses as to where the species-level unit belongs, and what specimens belong to it. Nomenclature usefully stabilises between epithets (representing their various original combinations) that end up thought to be the same species-level unit. That's why we have a code.
ICZN glossary
"species name or name of a species: A binomen, the combination of a generic name and a specific name"
"specific name: The second name in a binomen and in a trinomen"
Geoff
________________________________________
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu> on behalf of Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh from nhm.org>
Sent: 01 June 2018 05:48
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Antw: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
This is one of the reasons why I offer a philosophy of systematics course. To wit, "Species-level taxon concepts are hypotheses that can change... but species names are firmly tied to types and are not testable" -- Meier, 2017
________________________________________
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] on behalf of Sergio Salazar [savs551216 from hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 7:26 AM
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Antw: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
Dear colleagues,
Please take a look at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/syen.12215
Have fun,
Sergio
________________________________
De: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu> en nombre de Dieter Fiege <Dieter.Fiege from senckenberg.de>
Enviado: jueves, 31 de mayo de 2018 12:57 p. m.
Para: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Asunto: Antw: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
I greatly appreciate this initiative not simply as a means to increase citations of taxonomic papers but to also underline the relevance and long-lasting impact of taxonomic work. E.g. a species description does not have a decay time like results in some other disciplines might. Like Dani, Karen and others I also always suggest to include the relevant taxonomic references in the list of literature cited when I review manuscripts. I have been nagging authors and editors with this request for many years now. Since 2015 I am following this idea also as an associate editor for "Marine Biodiversity" (https://link.springer.com/journal/12526) A common argument often heard against citing taxonomic references is that literature lists become too long and printing costs rise. But with online publishing becoming more and more standard this point becomes less substantive - if it ever was (see Karen's comment re making it easier to find the original reference). Another point being held u!
p is that esp. citations of old works are often quoted faulty and misleading. Well, then there are reviewers and editors, who should straighten that out and pretty soon the correct quotation should become a standard.
[https://static-content.springer.com/cover/journal/12526/48/1.jpg]<https://link.springer.com/journal/12526>
Marine Biodiversity - Springer<https://link.springer.com/journal/12526>
link.springer.com
Marine Biodiversity is a peer-reviewed international journal devoted to all aspects of biodiversity research on marine ecosystems. The journal is a relaunch of the well-known "Senckenbergiana maritima" and covers research at gene, species and ecosystem level that focuses on describing the actors ...
I would like to add another point here: I think that e.g. in ecological papers it would make sense to cite the literature used for the identification of taxa in the Material and Methods section - and naturally list the citation(s) in the list of references. Identification keys are very helpful tools produced by taxonomists not only for use by their kin but for colleagues in a much wider range of fields. Ecologists are always happy if they get a taxonomic key for a certain taxon. Primer or other standard programs for statistical analyses are cited in almost every ecological paper, like standard molecular procedures are in molecular papers (see the example by Sergio), etc. So why not give the taxonomic key the proper credit, which I think it deserves?
So, yes, I think something like an open letter to taxonomists would be a good idea.
Best, Dieter
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/
