Thunberg, 1791

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Thu Nov 29 14:42:38 EST 2001


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Thunberg, 1791


> But Ron, isn't it true that most of the papers or books written rely on
some
> other secondary source such as a faunal work or checklist, so that very
few
> authors actually check or are in a position to check the original works
(which
> as several recent list contributors have noted) may not be readily
accessible.

Yes, most books (like yours) do this - and should be able to do this with
confidence. So the "fault" lies in the other publications the authors are
relying on.  (Both the patient and the druggist should be able to rely on
the doctor's prescription.) Checklists: these are very hard to do and thus
some errors always occur and can not be avoided.  But with research papers
there is no excuse.  It is the responsibility of the authors, reviewers,
and editors to make sure the information is accurate.   I have edited or
reviewed several papers in which I have needed to point out to the
author(s) that various aspects are not in line with the ICZN code.

> Authors who actually make nomenclatorial changes (as opposed to
systematic
> changes) are likely to document their quest and rationale  for the right
name
> or authority..  Those of us who do faunal works are more likely to
perpetuate
> errors than make new and original ones.

Absolutely, new ones are rarely made in those works.  (And when they are
made it is when "new combinations" (systematics) are introduced.)   It is
the responsibility of researchers to "correct" these repeated errors and
make them widely available so the next book or survey has the nomenclature
correct (systematic treatment, as you said, may still differ though).  This
is why the TC-ISBN on line index of names is so important.  To present a
continually updated index to keep the "nomenclature" as correct (up to
date) as possible.

>  In the avian literature, the authority for a particular name is seldom
given (unless it is the topic of the paper).  I  doubt that avian
systematics is in worse shape than butterfly systematics, despite having
more scientists meddling in it.
>

Ron Gatrelle
TILS president
Charleston, SC - USA
http://www.tils-ttr.org


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list