University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

![Nature header
ed](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-7AieyroUyHA/UoyuxsJW_vI/AAAAAAAADLg/4I760z43DNo/nature-header.ed.png?imgmax=800 "nature-header.ed.png"){border="0"
width="128" height="128" style="float:right;"}There is a fairly scathing
editorial in *Nature* \[The new zoo. (2013). Nature, 503(7476),
311--312. [doi:10.1038/503311b](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/503311b) \]
that reacts to a recent paper by Dubois et al.:  
  

> Dubois, A., Crochet, P.-A., Dickinson, E. C., Nemésio, A., Aescht, E.,
> Bauer, A. M., Blagoderov, V., et al. (2013). Nomenclatural and
> taxonomic problems related to the electronic publication of new nomina
> and nomenclatural acts in zoology, with brief comments on optical
> discs and on the situation in botany. Zootaxa, 3735(1), 1.
> [doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3735.1.1](http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3735.1.1)

  
To quote the editorial:  
  

> \...there might be more than a disinterested concern for scientific
> integrity at work here. A typical reader of the *Zootaxa* paper (not
> that there are typical readers of a 94-page work on the minutiae of
> nomenclature protocol) might reasonably conclude that the authors have
> axes to grind. Exhibits A--E: the high degree of autocitation in the
> Zootaxa paper; the admission that some of the authors were against the
> ICZN amendments; that they clearly feel that their opinions regarding
> the amendments have been disregarded; the *ad hominem* attacks on
> 'wealthy' publishers as opposed to straitened natural-history
> societies; and the use of emotive and occasionally intemperate
> language that one does not associate with the usually dry and
> legalistic tone of debate on this subject. (The online publisher
> BioMed Central, based in London, gets a particular pasting, to which
> it has responded; see
> <http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/11/15/the-devil-may-be-in-the-detail-but-the-longview-is-also-worth-a-look/>.)  
>   
> One of many recommendations made in the diatribe is that journals
> should routinely have on their review boards those expert in the
> business of nomenclature --- in other words, a cadre of people who
> are, unlike ordinary mortals, qualified to interpret the mystic
> strictures of the code. A typical reader is again entitled to ask
> whom, apart from themselves, the authors think might be suitable
> candidates.

  
Ouch! But Dubois et al.\'s paper pretty much deserves this reaction -
it\'s a reactionary rant that is breathtaking in it\'s lack of
perspective. From the abstract:  
  

> As shown by several examples discussed here, an electronic document
> can be modified while keeping the same DOI and publication date, which
> is not compatible with the requirements of zoological nomenclature.
> Therefore, another system of registration of electronic documents as
> permanent and inalterable will have to be devised.

  
So, we have an identifier system for publications which currently has
63,793,212 registered DOIs (see [CrossRef](http://www.crossref.org)),
includes key journals such as *Zootaxa* and *ZooKeys*, and which has
tools to support versioning of papers (see
[CrossMark](http://www.crossref.org/crossmark/)) but hey, let\'s have
our own unique system. After all, zoological nomenclature is *special*,
and our community has such a good track record of maintaining our own
identifier system (LSIDs anyone?).  
  
Now that the financial crisis faced by the ICZN has [been averted by a
three-year bail-out by the National University of
Singapore](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.14191) (for three years
at least), maybe the guardians of scientific names can focus on
providing tools and services of value to the broader scientific
community (or, indeed, taxonomists). As it stands, the [ICZN can say
little about the majority of animal
names](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-iczn-is-in-trouble.html).
Much better to focus on that than trying to rail against the practices
of modern publishing.


There is a fairly scathing editorial in
<em>
 Nature
</em>
[The new zoo. (2013). Nature, 503(7476), 311–312. doi:10.1038/503311b ] that reacts to a recent paper by Dubois et al.:  To quote the editorial:  Ouch! But Dubois et al.'s paper pretty much deserves this reaction - it's a reactionary rant that is breathtaking in it's lack of perspective.

Reaction to taxonomic reactionaries

There are many reasons why the [International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN) is in
trouble](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-end-of-names-iczn-in-financial.html),
but fundamentally I think it\'s because of situation illustrated by
following diagram.  
  
![ICZN](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-N7SW0KnOiT0/UTDQkJh96SI/AAAAAAAACgU/Db8HLH_uPeQ/ICZN.png?imgmax=800 "ICZN.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="460" height="460"}  
Based on an analysis of the [Index of Organism Names (ION)
database](http://www.organismnames.com) that I\'m currently working on,
there are around 3.8 million animal names (I define \"animal\" loosely,
the ICZN covers a number of eukaryote groups), of which around 1.5
million are \"original combinations\", that is, the name as originally
published. The other 2 million plus names are synonyms, spelling
variations, etc.  
  
Of these 3.8 million names the ICZN itself can say very little. It has
placed some 12,600 names (around 0.3% of the total) on its [Official
Lists and Indexes](http://iczn.org/content/official-lists-indexes-1)
(which is where it records decisions on nomenclature), and its new
register of names, [ZooBank](http://zoobank.org), has less than 100,000
names (i.e., less than 3% of all animal names).  
  
The ICZN doesn\'t have a comprehensive database of animal names, so it
can\'t answer the most basic questions one might have about names (e.g.,
\"is this a name?\", \"can I use this name, or has somebody already used
it?\", \"what other names have people used for this taxon?\", \"where
was this name originally published?\", \"can I see the original
description?\", \"who first said these two names are synonyms?\", and so
on). The ICZN has no answer to these questions. In the absence of these
services, it is reduced to making decisions about a tiny fraction of the
names that are in use (and there is no database of these decisions). It
is no wonder that it is in such trouble.


There are many reasons why the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is in trouble, but fundamentally I think it's because of situation illustrated by following diagram.

Why the ICZN is in trouble

::: {style="float:right;padding:4px;"}
![320px Drosophila
melanogaster](http://lh4.ggpht.com/-tbqYA8rTw9s/USdif6PpkgI/AAAAAAAACek/rNKQeXsKO9U/320px-Drosophila_melanogaster.jpg?imgmax=800 "320px-Drosophila_melanogaster.jpg"){border="0"
width="300"}  
  
Image by [Mr.checker](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.checker) from
[Wikimedia
Commons](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Drosophila_melanogaster.jpg)
:::

*Science* carries a news piece on the perilous state of the
[International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature](http://iczn.org/)
(on Twitter as [@ZooNom](https://twitter.com/zoonom)):  
  
Pennisi, E. (2013). International Arbiter of Animal Names Faces
Financial Woes. Science, 339(6122), 897--897.
[doi:10.1126/science.339.6122.897](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.339.6122.897)
(paywall)  
  
Elizabeth Pennisi\'s article states:  
  

> A rose by any other name might still smell as sweet, but an animal
> with two scientific monikers can wreak havoc for researchers trying to
> study it. Since 1895, the International Commission on Zoological
> Nomenclature (ICZN) has helped ensure animal names are unique and
> long-lasting, with a panel of volunteer commissioners who maintain
> naming rules and resolve conflicts when they arise. But the U.K.-based
> charitable trust that supports all this is slated to run out of money
> before the year\'s end---and that could spell trouble. \"If the trust
> ceases to exist it will be very difficult for the commissioners to do
> their work,\" says Michael Dixon, chair of the trust\'s board and
> director of the Natural History Museum in London. If ICZN disappeared
> \"it would be something akin to anarchy in animal naming.\"

  
The sums of money are not huge:  
  

> The nonprofit organization that formed in 1947 to raise funds and
> administer the ICZN code and the journal---the International Trust for
> Zoological Nomenclature---has weathered other crises. But net income
> from its journal is only about \$47,000 a year, and the trust\'s
> annual expenses now top \$155,000. So reserves are about to be
> exhausted, Dixon says.  
>   
> A few weeks ago, he sent an e-mail plea to directors of natural
> history museums around the world for emergency relief. In it, he
> proposed establishing a committee that would come up with a new
> financial model for the troubled organization. \"This is not unlike
> GenBank,\" the database of genome sequences that receives government
> support, Coddington says. \"It\'s the same distributed goods
> \[situation\], that everyone needs and nobody wants to pay for.\"  
>   
> \...  
>   
> Dixon estimates the trust needs \$78,000 or more to make it through
> the year. No single organization may be able to fund it long-term, but
> a network of 10 or 20 institutions might be able to kick in enough to
> sustain it, he says.

  
Maybe it\'s time for the ICZN to start a [Jimmy Wales-style
appeal](http://www.techerator.com/2010/11/a-personal-appeal-from-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-to-read-this-blog-post/),
or take taxonomy to [KickStarter](http://www.kickstarter.com/).


Image by Mr.checker from Wikimedia Commons
<em>
 Science
</em>
carries a news piece on the perilous state of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (on Twitter as @ZooNom):  Pennisi, E. (2013). International Arbiter of Animal Names Faces Financial Woes. Science, 339(6122), 897–897.

The end of names? ICZN in financial crisis

Here is my presentation from today's Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond meeting.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Reaction to taxonomic reactionaries

Why the ICZN is in trouble

The end of names? ICZN in financial crisis

Sherborn presentation on Open Taxonomy