-
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.
Cinclodes (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Melanie
Well-known member
Interesting that C. espinhacensis is considered as full species despite the fact that it is only accepted as subspecies by the SACC.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
They can't do that! Olrog's Cinclodes is one of my favourite ever bird names!
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Ocellated Tapaculo has to be up there with it......:t:
James Jobling
Well-known member
My favourites, from days of yore, are Oleaginous Pipromorph and Blue-wreathed Ifrit.
sicklebill
well-known Cretaceous relic
Classic! I have a priceless one from mammals too-Paucident Planigale
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
A journal kept by a single author and publisher, I don't want to create controversy but it looks a lot like a taxonomic vandalism, no?
I find the choice of words a bit strong, as after all,
Taxonomic vandalism would be relevant if someone replaced the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and started randomly replacing the code with other wordings.
Niels
Kirk Roth
Rarely to be taken seriously
"Taxonomic Vandalism" is an already used term, albeit not yet well defined and more often used in popular media than actual scientific literature (perhaps for obvious reasons). It roughly means an act of taxonomic description that involves some sort of misconduct, resulting in the publication of taxa names that are somewhat dubious. As a long-time user of this forum, I'm certain you can easily think of examples of such accusations even if this particular term wasn't used! It is widely familiar in herpetology due to some fairly infamous and certainly dubious acts by a few people. It also crops up in taxa with less formal nomenclature processes - insects and tropical plants come to mind. Ornithology has relatively rigorous and well-checked taxonomic authorities, so it not surprising to me that this term would not be widely used or recognized in our "sphere" here.
Which is my long way of saying that our friend here isn't necessarily being harsh, at least not because of word choice - the term was already "chosen" by the masses!
For some articles that use this term:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-big-ugly-problem-heart-of-taxonomy-180964629/
https://www.researchgate.net/public...he_Rutelini_Coleoptera_Scarabaeidae_Rutelinae
http://www.africanherpetology.org/taxonomy.php
Kirk Roth
Rarely to be taken seriously
All above said, doesn't the Code prevent an author from naming a species after himself? Am I misunderstanding something here?
opisska
rabid twitcher
From the English version of the paper:
Etymology. The specific name lopezlanusorum (=de los López-Lanús) is not in recognition of its discoverer, Bernabé López-Lanús, but of his family, who acted as “sponsor” for six years, financing the field trips to the study sites, providing logistical support and places in both Saladillo and Buenos Aires to advance this study.
But is the name validly published under the Code? Is the journal only online?
James Jobling
Well-known member
Mike beat me to it; here is the full English dedication; "The specific name lopezlanusorum (= de los López-Lanús) is not in recognition of its discoverer, Bernabé López-Lanús, but of his family, who acted as "sponsor" for six years, financing the field trips to the study sites, providing logistical support and places in both Saladillo and Buenos Aires to advance this study. That is why the author dedicates the species to his family, López-Lanús, both to his parents Bernabé Francisco and Ana Inés, and to his brothers, especially Sebastián López-Lanús; and with the same strength to the author's son, Máximo B. López-Lanús, who tolerates his father's absences on his long field trips." (B. López-Lanús 2019)
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
This paper and the SACC proposal illustrate various things which are broken in modern bird taxonomy practice.
1. It should be prohibited to name a new species after yourself (or in a way that achieves the same thing, e.g. for your parents). It's not prohibited in the Code, but it still remains the height of bad taste and bad manners, reflecting worst of all on the author. It also produces a conflict of interest: if the author so wants immortality, he may cast aside objectivity in analysing the taxonomic proposal.
2. Peer review versus non-peer review, The original description here is self -published, without the rigour of the peer review process of journals. People discuss whether this should be allowed for naming organisms, but it remains possible under the Code. I am not convinced publication venues should be restricted too drastically. Whilst peer review generally means that only good papers tend to be published, many other good papers are sacrificed along the way, and many journals and reviewers are affected by conflicts of interest themselves. But there are a few instances now of self-publication creating serious problems, especially in herptiles and Canada Geese.
3. Questionable "medicine" being meted about by ornithologists, via SACC, to address these issues. We now have a non-peer reviewed, non-objective, chatty, vitriolic, entirely critical piece as a SACC proposal to address the problems raised by the non-peer reviewed, non-objective paper. Pots and kettles, calling each other different colours. The proposal makes no effort whatsoever to make the positive case for the taxonomic proposal being reviewed and seems only intended to grandstand, flag-wave, criticize, express disgust and achieve an objective of having the work rejected.
Unfortunately, SACC has an illustrious and long history of trashing external works in one-sided, myopic, uninformative, often (as here) vitriolic, unpublicable proposals. In some cases, they have been proven wrong. See this (non-peer reviewed, self published) open letter:
Donegan TM 2019. On conflicts of interest, bias and deviations from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in a taxonomic committee, the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithologists' Society: an analysis of previous cases, with recommendations for reform. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35777.51047
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_Committee_of_the_American_Ornithologists'
4. That leaves the rest of us wondering what to do. I am sure the description leaves a lot to be desired; the conflict with molecular results is probably very informative. However, when I see pieces like this, and not knowing the birds at all, the only thing you can do is say "meh" and remain to be convinced either way. The SACC proposal ticks the box on pretty much every indicator of "pseudo-scepticism" discussed in the above-mentioned paper, continuing a long tradition of such SACC behaviour. That something is pseudosceptic does not make it incorrect. However, just like the description of lopezlanusi, there is no objective way for the reader to have any positive conclusions about such a piece.
1. It should be prohibited to name a new species after yourself (or in a way that achieves the same thing, e.g. for your parents). It's not prohibited in the Code, but it still remains the height of bad taste and bad manners, reflecting worst of all on the author. It also produces a conflict of interest: if the author so wants immortality, he may cast aside objectivity in analysing the taxonomic proposal.
2. Peer review versus non-peer review, The original description here is self -published, without the rigour of the peer review process of journals. People discuss whether this should be allowed for naming organisms, but it remains possible under the Code. I am not convinced publication venues should be restricted too drastically. Whilst peer review generally means that only good papers tend to be published, many other good papers are sacrificed along the way, and many journals and reviewers are affected by conflicts of interest themselves. But there are a few instances now of self-publication creating serious problems, especially in herptiles and Canada Geese.
3. Questionable "medicine" being meted about by ornithologists, via SACC, to address these issues. We now have a non-peer reviewed, non-objective, chatty, vitriolic, entirely critical piece as a SACC proposal to address the problems raised by the non-peer reviewed, non-objective paper. Pots and kettles, calling each other different colours. The proposal makes no effort whatsoever to make the positive case for the taxonomic proposal being reviewed and seems only intended to grandstand, flag-wave, criticize, express disgust and achieve an objective of having the work rejected.
Unfortunately, SACC has an illustrious and long history of trashing external works in one-sided, myopic, uninformative, often (as here) vitriolic, unpublicable proposals. In some cases, they have been proven wrong. See this (non-peer reviewed, self published) open letter:
Donegan TM 2019. On conflicts of interest, bias and deviations from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in a taxonomic committee, the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithologists' Society: an analysis of previous cases, with recommendations for reform. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35777.51047
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_Committee_of_the_American_Ornithologists'
4. That leaves the rest of us wondering what to do. I am sure the description leaves a lot to be desired; the conflict with molecular results is probably very informative. However, when I see pieces like this, and not knowing the birds at all, the only thing you can do is say "meh" and remain to be convinced either way. The SACC proposal ticks the box on pretty much every indicator of "pseudo-scepticism" discussed in the above-mentioned paper, continuing a long tradition of such SACC behaviour. That something is pseudosceptic does not make it incorrect. However, just like the description of lopezlanusi, there is no objective way for the reader to have any positive conclusions about such a piece.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I'm no scientist or taxonomist but this is exactly what I understood to be the case.
