[leps-talk] Papilio machaon aliaska
warrena at mail.science.orst.edu
Mon Mar 4 15:51:41 EST 2002
> Any professional worthy of the name who does not take something seriously
> due to the name it is given or because of its source needs to give their
> head a serious shake, stop being an arrogant jerk and learn how to think
> objectively and constructively. I would hope that professionals (people who
> are paid to do something)will support and help those who are not paid to do
> this work rather than ignoring it or sniping at it.
Ok, Norbert, you got me. I agree that the list should not be ignored
simply because of its name and it would be unprofessional to do so.
However, it is more professional to claim that a list is something it is
not, and cannot be? By calling the list "taxonomically correct" the
compilers are shooting themselves in the foot. Serious systematists
recognize that different species concepts exist (those that think
objectively and keep an open mind), and realize that a "correct" taxonomic
combination is in the mind of the beholder. I don't think criticizing the
name of the list automatically makes me a jerk (many of my other qualities
would suffice). Were the compilers of the "TC"-ISBN really thinking
"objectively and constructively" when they named the list? Previously on
this list, I have begged for a justification (from Pavulaan or Gatrelle)
for their name "taxonomically correct"; a plea that has been met with
silence. If someone can convince me that this list is "correct", I will
shut up. Until then, "taxonomically correct"-ISBN is simply false
I consider these comments constructive criticism, and I have openly
acknowledged the huge potential of the list Pavulaan et al. are trying to
compile. This is not, and should not be seen as "sniping." I apologize
if this is interpreted as arrogance.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Warren [mailto:warrena at mail.science.orst.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> Cc: 'Felix Sperling'; TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com; Harry Pavulaan;
> cguppy at quesnelbc.com; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: [leps-talk] Papilio machaon aliaska
> I wonder if Pavulaan and Gatrelle* still call their list "taxonomically
> correct"? The title alone has led me to question the methods in which the
> correctness of a taxon name is evaluated. As Felix has shown, the stated
> guidelines of the "TC"-ISBN will not necessarily lead to a "correct"
> decision, under all viewpoints. As I tried to point out on leps-l before,
> there is no such thing as a "correct" taxonomic list (it is in the
> archives). Anyone who claims to have a/the "correct" taxonomic list is
> dreaming. I think Norbert is correct that this "TC"-ISBN listing has
> tremendous potential (way above and beyond what other lists offer), but
> with a name like "taxonomically correct", I doubt that there is a single
> professionally trained systematist or taxonomist that will take the list
> seriously. Just my two cents, again.
> Andy Warren
> * sorry Ron if you are not involved with the decision making related to
> the "TC"-ISBN; I am purposefully picking on you...
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX wrote:
> > thanks to Felix for sharing his views on this topic. I differ however,
> > insofar as this does inspire confidence in the TC-ISBN because it is being
> > developed in a very open and transparent manner and the compiler has
> > requested input to improve the quality of the product which as we all know
> > will continue to evolve. This is far more credible and far preferable to
> > dreadful ATL/Heppner list which was done behind closed doors and without
> > reference to the excellent published work of both Gatrelle and Sperling.
> > have no confidence in the ATL list and plenty of confidence in the TILS
> > index with respect to their usefulness. Regardless of what is written or
> > whom, there will continue to be differing views on some of these topics.
> > can appreciate that Felix may be disappointed by not having been consulted
> > directly before the material was posted. It is likely that Harry was at
> > least equally disappointed when Felix and several other people publicly
> > rejected Harry's excellent published work on C. idella without
> > and on the apparent basis of an opinion by one committee member who has
> > no research on Celastrina that I am aware of. I hope that Felix will, if
> > has not already done so, propose a revised version of what should go on
> > Index.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l