paleonet Re: Species names for sale

From
Date
Reply-To
Bob Fleisher and Peter Smolka both had some interesting comments on this
subject. Without being judgmental in any way, I would like to ask how naming
species for donors would work in practice.

Obviously, the Canadian Museum of Nature would have to arrange to send
material only to cooperating entomologists. It is interesting that a museum
would select this kind of cooperation over proven expertise. Is this
ethical?

Normally, the cooperating entomologists would be free to name their own
species. Would they feel that their rights have been curtailed in this case?

Would non-cooperating entomologists feel that they had been left out in the
cold?

Would museum entomologists feel pressured to cooperate against their
personal ethics?

If the practice becomes widespread, would donors shop around among museums
for the best deal?

Would museums advertise species names in their holiday catalogs as a unique
and charming gift?

How charmed would a donor (or unwitting holiday gift recipient) be to have a
roach named for him or her?

Could a species be auctioned off to the highest bidder? A truly charming
species could raise a lot more money than 500 dollars.

Would the publication of new species names be delayed if some of the species
for sale had no donors yet?

If the donor's species turns out to be a junior synonym, would the museum
have to return the money, or would the name come with a guarantee?

What, if anything, should journal editors and owners say about their
publications being used indirectly for profit?

In what ways, if any, is the procedure different from honoring a major donor
such as the Carlsberg Foundation, which has had several taxa named for it to
honor a long-term commitment to science?

At present, the ICZN does not outlaw new names that are too long, too short,
meaningless, ugly, boring, inappropriate, hard to pronounce, or ineptly put
together. It does recommend strongly against names that are unpronounceable
in any language or intentionally offensive, and it insists on getting the
gender right for names based on persons. The review process has been pretty
good at weeding out some of the worst manuscript names. As a manuscript
reviewer, I once rescued a European author from publishing an appropriate
name that could not be pronounced in English without provoking cries of
disbelief from 3 out of 4 secretaries.

It would be possible to erect a rule outlawing names based on cash donors,
but very difficult and confusing to enforce. So -- regardless of any
personal convictions that I may or may not have, and certainly have not
revealed on this matter -- I must conclude that we are, as ever, at the
mercy of our colleagues' good taste. Until the matter is taken from our
hands. Of course.

Cheers,
Andrew K. Rindsberg

Geological Survey of Alabama
P.O. Box 869999
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-6999 USA