• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

"Taxonomy anarchy" (1 Viewer)

Raposo, Stopiglia, Brito, Bockmann, Kirwan, Gayon, Dubois. 2017. What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017). Zootaxa 4317:179-184.
[open access]

Abstract
Responding to purported taxonomic anarchy, in an article published in the widely read journal Nature, Garnett & Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] opined on the need for “standardized global species lists”, at the behest of conservationists, and proposed the construction of a judicial committee to “restrict … freedom of taxonomic action” and promote taxonomic stability. Here we reflect on this perspective and contest that the view of GC conflicts with some basic and indisputable principles underpinning the philosophy of science, most notably: it must be free. They appear to believe that taxonomic revisions should be based on political, economic and conservation concerns, and they treat species as fixed real entities, instead of refutable scientific hypotheses. In addition to such theoretical misconceptions, GC did not consider important practical aspects of what they term taxonomic anarchy, most significantly the participation of conservationists as authors of taxonomic works, and the importance of alternative management units, a well-established discussion in conservation biology.
 
Raposo, Stopiglia, Brito, Bockmann, Kirwan, Gayon, Dubois. 2017. What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017). Zootaxa 4317:179-184.
[open access]

Abstract
Responding to purported taxonomic anarchy, in an article published in the widely read journal Nature, Garnett & Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] opined on the need for “standardized global species lists”, at the behest of conservationists,

Are we talking about taxonomic status here or common nomenclature as if it's the latter, scientific names already provide a standard list without inflicting myriad, common name changes on the average birder.


A
 
Last edited:
Are we talking about taxonomic status here or common nomenclature as if it's the latter, scientific names already provide a standard list without inflicting myriad, common name changes on the average birder.
The debate is about taxonomy. Principally changes in species limits.
 
Still another reaction:

Jackson​​, Scherz​, Zona​. 2017. Taxonomy is not beholden to its dependencies: a rebuttal to Garnett and Christidis. PeerJ Preprints, 5:e3060v1.
[here]
 
Maybe somebody remembers that the concept is chart before the horse. Species get conservation priority over subspecies because they are more distinct than subspecies. Not as today: somebody wants his favorite to get conservation priority so promotes it to a distinct species.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top