Re: paleonet Species names for sale: Unusual but not impossible

From
Date
In-Reply-To
Reply-To
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Robert L. Fleisher wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:53:06 -0600
> From: Robert L. Fleisher <forams@flash.net>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: PaleoNet <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
> Subject: paleonet Species names for sale
>
> A friend on another list recently came across the following link, and
> after some discussion I promised to bring it to the attention of other
> professional paleontologists for your opinions.
>
> http://www.nature.ca/research/ndfund/ndfund_e.cfm
>
> The gist of the situation is this:  the Canadian Museum of Nature has
> set up something called the Nature Discovery Fund, a "not-for-profit
> fund designed to encourage public support for systematics."  The goal
> seems to be to provide scientific names for all of the so-far-unnamed

( ... )

>
> The problem is that they are attracting financial backing in a most

( ... )

> months of the donation.  I realize that monetary support for taxonomy is
> hard to come by, and that I may be more traditionalist than many, but
> this arrangement strikes me as grossly unethical, and I wonder how many
> systematicists would go along with it.  I would be very grateful for any
> comments;  I promised to report back to my other list on your informed
> response.
>
Dear Bob,

I understand your posting such that you invite views to learn more
about the existing spectrum of views. So: Here is mine:

1) We can agree on the fact that raising funds for some threads of
   research is difficult.

2) We can, I think, also agree on the fact that for whichoever reason
   some people donate money for certain initiatives while others donate
   money to others.

   Example: If NASA would ask for donations for remote operated drilling
   on Mars (and respective micropaleontology, including studies for
   early bacteria)
   I would donate a small sum of money because I think that this kind
   of, with non doubt, risky research, needs support.

3) We can also agree to the fact that the names that are assigned to
   species (like foraminifers) are sometimes helpful (= the name itsself
   describes particulars of the species) while other names, such as
   those honouring personalities that deserve honor are difficult
   to remember. On insects of course I cannot comment.

   This means: It is generally accepted that the assignment of names
   is open to personal preferences.

4) To conclude logically: If the assignment of names is anyway open
   and if the names do not violate certain standards (especially those
   of political correctness and other standards) they can, in principle,
   assign any name, including those of the project-enabling organization.

If for example the helicopter department of Boeing supports an insect
project: Why shouldn t they assign a name like: xyz-copteri safeflyensis
(translated to latin).

To conclude: If the names themselves meet general standards (= avoiding
names like  "name of a person betrayense") I think this procedure can
be accepted. I must admit that I would also have some private thoughts
if a name is found like "Pepsi-Cola welltastense" but in principle
I would agree to above procedure.

By the way: Some years ago we had, as internal joke for fund-raising,
a similar idea. We obviously, formulated with a polite smile, should
be more open to unusual approaches.

> Bob Fleisher
> Houston, TX
>
>
Best regards, Peter Smolka
>

**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster

Tel.: +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
Fax:  +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************