Comments on: Does Darwinius Exist?

By: Thornhill dentist

Thornhill dentist — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:17:44 +0000

As interesting as fossil finds are to science geeks – and to much of the public as well – what sets this episode apart from the norm is the extent of machinations involved to hype this discovery before the public. And also, there’s the underlying question of whether such publicity-mongering is good or bad for science?

By: Ida Adapoid « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Ida Adapoid « A Primate of Modern Aspect — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:20:14 +0000

[...] that my little corner of science had caused quite a stir- and I missed it! Laelaps, Pharyngula, The Loom, and many others have written excellent posts on little Ida, which I encourage everyone to go read, [...]

By: YerbilimleriEnglish » Darwinius Kerfuffle

YerbilimleriEnglish » Darwinius Kerfuffle — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:03:39 +0000

[...] and has 0 Comments so far. The ridiculous hype surrounding the description of Darwinius masillae (if that is your real name) has overshadowed the true scientific importance of the discovery of an early (~47Mya) and complete [...]

By: Richard Pyle

Richard Pyle — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:01:34 +0000

I realize that folks have mostly moved on from this particular blog post, but before I move on myself I just want to say that I agree completely with Paul van Rijckevorsel’s parenthetical at the end of his Comment #64. After posting my comment (to which he refers), I came to the same conclusion myself, and therefore recommended to Peter Binfield that he add the explanatory note at the end, instead of simply changing the publication date. I think it’s important to include the publication date of the paper copy — just to formally establish the date of availability; but I agree that it’s best done within the appropriate context — as was actually done.

By: Weekly PLoS Blog and Media Round-up « everyONE – the PLoS ONE community blog

Fri, 22 May 2009 23:49:04 +0000

[...] scientific name Darwinius masillae, but that was quickly cleared up – see the discussions at: The Loom, Fish matters, Lancelet, Why Evolution Is True, Chinleana, Chinleana, DinoGoss, The Loom, The Loom, [...]

By: Paul van Rijckevorsel

Paul van Rijckevorsel — Fri, 22 May 2009 07:15:52 +0000

I see that in the above there is a very good illustration of the great conceptual divide between the nomenclatural universe and the ‘real’world, where it says:

“In the past, PLoS has gone to great lengths to ensure that taxanomic papers published in PLoS One meet the ICZN standards. Last year PLoS One published a paper describing a revision of several ant genera.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001787
Cognizant of the ICZN standards, PLoS One ensured that print copies of the article were deposited in appropriate libraries. This was described explicitly in the paper.”

However, from an ICZN-nomenclatural perspective this is quite ambivalent. The actual ant-publication says: “In accordance with section 8.6 of the ICZN’s International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, we have deposited copies of this article at the following five publicly accessible libraries: [...]” The statement in the article could be quite allright, if (and only if) these copies are CD’s, DVD’s, etc. However, if these copies are paper printouts, it is nonsense, as Art. 8.6 only deals with “[...] a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper”. On the face of it, judging only by the PLos ONE-paper, it looks in order, as it is not made clear that the “copies” are not the required CD’s, DVD’s, etc, so a reviewer might not catch this, nor would a reader, as he would suppose that the names were published on the 5 CD’s, DVD’s, etc that were deposited. However, apparently the reader would be wrong in his assumption: apparently these ant names were published in the paper printouts sent to the libraries, and the number of five libraries is an arbitrary choice, where the Code requires “numerous identical and durable copies”, that were “simultaneously obtainable”. Anyway, there is nothing “explicit” about it; the reader has to enquire further to find out what exactly did happen and how and where these names were actually published.

Note that if these ants were plants (with botanical names), this procedure of sending out paper printouts to “botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists” would work, while sending out CD’s, DVD’s, etc would not. Here too, it would not be required to specify this in the paper itself.

By: Paul van Rijckevorsel

Paul van Rijckevorsel — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:24:01 +0000

Although I agree with better than 99% of what Richard Pyle has said (good to see the proper authorities stepping up!), there are a few points worth making:
1) It is a great relief to see that nobody stepped in to scoop the name. To me, the course followed by PLoS ONE looked uncomfortably much like a deliberate challenge to all comers to come and rob them. This did not happen; a good sign, a reason for hope!
2) The main point hammered out above is that there is a separate nomenclatural universe, with its own perspective on what does and does not exist. However, the distinction between the existence of publications and the existence of names is not the only distinction to be made. All the above bears on animal names (zoological names). In another location Carl Zimmer says: “The fact that taxonomists share a set of rules, no matter how intricate, was one of the great advances in the history of biology.” That, emphatically, is not true (unless one takes the position that taxonomy is animal-taxonomy-only). Taxonomists do not share a set of rules. Instead zoologists share a set of rules, while botanists share another set of rules, and bacteriologists (studying prokaryotes) share a third of rules, etc. These sets of rules govern separate universes, each of them huge, and complex as well as fragile. These parallel universes show some overlap and are more or less comparable, but they are separate: there is a great divide in terminology and detail between these universes, and it is quite dangerous for somebody at home in one universe to say something about another universe. But indeed the world should count itself fortunate that each of these sets of rules (each ruling its own universe) apply the world over, and that there are not more of them (it has been touch-and-go).

As what would work for a zoological name would not necessarily work for a botanical name (and vice versa), PLoS ONE’s adopting a policy that meets with the requirements of the animal Code (the ICZN) is not guaranteed to be sufficient for the future. Nor is it guaranteed that something that will work now will keep working in the future. These rulebooks are adjusted from time to time, sometimes because of incidents like this one.

(BTW: The one point that I really disagree on with Richard Pyle was his suggestion to alter the pdf to change the date. I am much happier with the solution actually adopted, namely to add an explanatory footer.)

By: Darwinius: Named at Last! | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Darwinius: Named at Last! | The Loom | Discover Magazine — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:07:09 +0000

[...] I posted yesterday, some commenters on the Loom pointed out that, amidst all the hullaballoo over the [...]

By: Richard Pyle

Richard Pyle — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:47:19 +0000

Just a minor clarification of the penultimate paragraph in Peter Binfield's paragraph in comment #61 above: The pending proposed Amendment to the ICZN Code for allowing electronic forms of publication (see: http://www.iczn.org/electronic_publication.html) is currently in review, as is required for all such major amendments to the Code. This process will likely be completed within the next year, and if adopted, the amendment should go into effect at that time. What will require "a few years" to be published is the next (Fifth) Edition of the ICZN Code (see: http://iczn.ansp.org/). Presumably, this Edition of the Code will also support the electronic publication of nomenclatural acts (especially if the proposed amendment to the existing 4th Edition of the Code is approved).

By: Peter Binfield

Peter Binfield — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:27:17 +0000

I am the Managing Editor of PLoS ONE. Regarding the requirements for making the name Darwinius masillae nomenclaturally available in the eyes of the ICZN, we have been in discussion with Ellinor Michel (the ICZN Executive Secretary) and have additionally consultated with Richard L. Pyle (an ICZN Commissioner). They have advised us that by doing the following, we have met the ICZN code and therefore the name should be considered nomenclaturally available.

A print-run of fifty copies of the paper has been created on May 21st. The top sheet of each copy has the following text appended to the footer: “This document was produced by a method that assures numerous identical & durable copies, and those copies were simultaneously obtainable for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record, in accordance with Article 8.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Date of publication: 21st May 2009”

Apart from this wording, these copies are identical to the electronic version that is freely available from our web site at: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723&representation=PDF

These copies are now obtainable from our offices at 185 Berry Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA. Anyone who requests a copy, and tenders a fee of $10 (towards the cost of postage and printing) will receive a copy.

Having made the printed copies available, we have been told by the individuals named above that we have conformed with the relevant ICZN codes. They have also indicated that the proposed resolution is an interim step, which should meet the requirements of the Code until a formal amendment is published within the next few years.

We are very grateful to the ICZN for their actions to resolve this matter.

By: David Marjanović

David Marjanović — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:18:40 +0000

and none of us really wants this thing to be called Rioarribasimia.

I'm still ROTFL about this, but it's not actually funny at all... And it gets still worse. Doesn't everything that applies to Darwinius also apply to Maiacetus?

By: Darwinius: what’s at issue? « Why Evolution Is True

Darwinius: what’s at issue? « Why Evolution Is True — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:16:35 +0000

[...] (rather than the world), but it’s attracted the most attention. See the posts here at WEIT, the Loom (and here), the Lancelet, and Laelaps, including the ensuing commentary by, among others, Henry [...]