Some years ago I refereed a multi-author manuscript about a polychaete species, common in some parts of the world, which had been found in a new biogeographical area, in a different habitat, and looking different to most descriptions. I wondered if it really was that common species.
One thing I wrote to the editor [species name changed] was "Because of the unusual behaviour of Xus yus described, it would be good to be sure that it was actually Xus yus being studied. Who identified it - using which key/description? Was it checked by an expert? Are there voucher specimens in a Museum?"
This was totally ignored.
Alexander Muir
Mr. A.I. Muir,
Invertebrates Division, Life Sciences Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, LONDON SW7 5BD, UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 (0)20 7942 5609
-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Dieter Fiege
Sent: 31 May 2018 13:57
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: Antw: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
... ... ... ...
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
