WW wrote:

'Check out the following publication for more detail:
WÜSTER, W., B. BUSH, J.S. KEOGH, M. O'SHEA & R. SHINE (2001) Taxonomic contributions in the "amateur" literature: comments on recent descriptions ofnew genera and species by Raymond Hoser. Litteratura Serpentium, 21(3): 67-79, 86-91.'

I checked out this article and I do agree with some of Wuster et al.'s criticism of Hoser's taxonomic practice.

Hoser did follow the rules of the ICZN in naming his new taxa, although Wuster et al. pointed out that he made many mistakes forming the names properly. The bulk of Wuster et al.'s criticism properly concentrated on Hoser's lack of scientific data in support of his proposals. I agree with Wuster et al. that taxonomic proposals do require considerable support from scientific data in order to be accepted. However I disagree that the problem can be solved by restricting the publication of taxonomic proposals to peer-reviewed journals. I therefore disagree with Wuster et al.’s “solution” for the following reasons:

Firstly, there is no provision under the rules of the ICZN that taxonomic proposals must be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or even scientific journals. In fact, taxonomic proposals can be published in book form and many of the most familiar names of American herps were originally published in books, not scientific journals. Wuster et al.'s suggestion that taxonomic proposals be banished from "amateur" publications cannot be enforced. Of course, Hoser or anyone can publish their proposal in book form and be in compliance with the rules of the ICZN.

Secondly, the peer-review process is not one that confirms the validity of the data presented. Therefore mistakes have been and will continue to be made in the gathering and presentation of data, even in peer-reviewed journals.

Thirdly, the type of evidence-free taxonomic proposals made by Hoser has recently appeared in scientific journals as well. One such proposal was made by Collins (1991) in Herpetological Review. Collins was criticized by many herpetologists, including H. G. Dowling, who calls Collins' proposal '"without legal status (“incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial”: Dunn and Stuart 1951b), and do not consider it a constructive effort in herpetological taxonomy.'

As Dowling puts it, 'Certainly, a group of "specialists" (or any other group sitting at a bar), or any author alone can determine how he/she will treat a taxon in their own publications (e.g., Lazell 1972). This, however, gives no additional validity to that usage; again it is the substantiation of this change by the provision of data, and the acceptance of this as adequate by other herpetologists, that count.'

Therefore, the proper way to deal with the type of evidence-free taxonomic proposals made by Hoser and Collins is to reject them. Banning them does not work because they are not invalid under the rules of the ICZN. Ironically Wuster himself accepts one of Collins' taxonomic proposals, specifically the elevation of the Florida subspecies of Drymarchon to species status despite the fact that no evidence is presented by Collins to support his proposal!

Wuster et al. also criticized Hoser for not following the taxonomic arrangements of other authors. However, I disagree with Wuster et al. on this point since their criticism has more to do with ideology than scientific methodology. For example, Wuster et al. claim that because “...Kluge (1993) proposed a new generic arrangement for pythons, based on his phylogenetic analysis of 121 behavioural and morphological characters. It would therefore be normal practice for further studies of python systematics to follow that arrangement, unless they provide strong evidence contradicting Kluge’s findings.” Wuster et al. have apparently conflated systematics and taxonomy. Systematics is the science of discovering evolutionary relationships through the collection of scientific evidence. Taxonomy, however, is not a science. Taxonomy cannot be falsified, even though taxonomists of all schools do reject taxa that are polyphyletic since the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Even though one may agree with Kluge’s phylogenetic hypothesis, one does not have to follow Kluge’s taxonomic practice. Kluge is a cladist, and he is intolerant of paraphyletic taxa. A Darwinian who disagrees with Kluge’s taxonomy can indeed recognize Chondropython as a valid genus even though Kluge had sunk it back into Morelia because of his intolerance of paraphyly. Therefore I believe that Wuster et al. unfairly criticized Hoser for not conforming to cladistic ideology. Taxonomic proposals are just that, proposals, and no one has to follow Kluge or anyone else’s proposal.

In conclusion, the problem with Hoser’s taxonomic proposal is the same as that of Collins’ proposal. In both cases, no scientific evidence is cited to justify the proposals. The proper way to deal with evidence-free proposals is to reject or ignore them, not to ban them from publication, since it is not possible to do so in a free society.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]