When is the next ICZN meeting for fish? Does anyone know? The last one was in 2004? I'm getting really sick of skipping around this Nothonotus thing in my manuscripts (I don't care which way it goes, just someone make a decision). It's really expensive in terms of words and mental cycles to anticipate reviewers comments. It would certainly make my discussions a lot more interesting without needing a phylogeny if they go ahead and elevate it. In the meantime, I'm stuck because I am NOT an ichthyologist

This might also open an interesting discussion about how taxonomy works....

Todd

Edited by farmertodd, 21 April 2011 - 10:58 AM.

I am not sure if the ICZN has taxon specific meetings- I was under the impression that you submit a new name as it comes up with supported data. That being said, I would imagine maybe they have meetings to compile lists every several years(?).

I think the problem with Nothonotus too is that the actual genus name Etheostoma isn't accompanied by a formal description (so no list of shared distinguishing characteristics among species in the genus) from my understanding. Nothonotus however was diagnosed (see Zorach 1972 in Copeia) and has a list of distinguishing characters. So Nothonotus technically wouldn't be "split" from Etheostoma, but rather simply an elevation to a genus.

Edited by pjc237, 21 April 2011 - 11:27 AM.

And you've been a guest since '06? Time to join the ranks, mon frere!

And you've been a guest since '06? Time to join the ranks, mon frere!

Haha, I am a member as of this year. I guess I should change the status on the forum.

PJC,

Thanks for your insight into this. My understanding is that each class had its own group that met to discuss and compile the submissions. Maybe I misunderstood.

And as Martin said, glad to have you as part of the org and conversation

Todd

Edited by farmertodd, 22 April 2011 - 09:51 AM.

When is the next ICZN meeting for fish? Does anyone know? The last one was in 2004? I'm getting really sick of skipping around this Nothonotus thing in my manuscripts (I don't care which way it goes, just someone make a decision). It's really expensive in terms of words and mental cycles to anticipate reviewers comments. It would certainly make my discussions a lot more interesting without needing a phylogeny if they go ahead and elevate it. In the meantime, I'm stuck because I am NOT an ichthyologist

This might also open an interesting discussion about how taxonomy works....

Todd

I may be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am, but my impression is that the ICZN does not review and render opinions on the scientific merits of names, but on whether the names and descriptions adhere to the technical rules of nomenclature as codified by the ICZN (e.g., Was the name adequately published? Was the description adequately sufficient to distinguish the taxon? Were types properly deposited?). It's not up to the ICZN to decide whether Nothonotus should be recognized as a genus or subgenus; that's left to prevailing usage among darter experts. It would help, of course, if someone published a paper formally elevating the subgenus to genus. To my knowledge, that has not happened. Instead, some darterologists simply use Nothonotus as if it were a done deal. I asked Larry Page about this a few years ago, asking if he would use Notonotus in the 2nd edition of his Field Guide. He said no, that there is no support for Nothonotus.

Chris

It would help, of course, if someone published a paper formally elevating the subgenus to genus. To my knowledge, that has not happened. Instead, some darterologists simply use Nothonotus as if it were a done deal. I asked Larry Page about this a few years ago, asking if he would use Notonotus in the 2nd edition of his Field Guide. He said no, that there is no support for Nothonotus.

Yes, and therein lies the rub - we were BLASTED on a proposal because we didn't recognize Nothonotus (you would have thought we lumped darters with Sander). Else, I wouldn't give a damn. And it's not like I don't agree it's real... I have ecological support for the genus, I just haven't had time to address how "close" close is in terms of the conservation of a niche within a family utilizing the same general habitat. I'm not trained to write the other paper, nor am I gonna get myself involved in _that_ cluster regardless, no thanks! lol

Todd

AFS should have a names book coming out soon Todd. What does the online Catalouge of Fishes say? In my rather crude understanding, Chris is correct about ICZN; AFS and the catalouge are the bodies that issue the names. The same issues are cropping up with mollusks in NSF proposals, but both should have "names" documents within the next few years.

The ICZN usually gets involved if someone presents a case to the committee, and it's usually for things like priority (i.e., what name was published first) and not use of one genus over another. At least as I understand it. The AFS names list is put together by a committee and is probably the better authority for fish names. The 'Catalog' is impressive in its breadth and detail, but it is still officiated over by one person and their opinion. At least the AFS names committee has multiple opinions. The new lists were coming out on a 10 year cycle, but the last one was 14 years after the previous version.

I'm certainly in one camp on Nothonotus... actually, I tend the fire. I asked one authority about it a few years ago and his first answer was something along the lines of "Because I don't like it" and more recently a few others have expressed the same opinion. Usually, after presenting my case and discounting all proposed problems, these 'discussions' end with them telling me that my case is moot because they are the authorities and everyone listens to them. Please don't think I'm discounting their contributions, as I certainly wouldn't know most of what I know without their work, and it's certainly moved North American ichthyology forward by leaps and bounds over the past 50 years. At the same time, North American ichthyology is not at a static point after those accomplishments. There is much to be done with the systematics of North American fishes, and more importantly, North American fishes are a treasure trove of systems that will add invaluable insights in the study of ecology and evolutionary biology.

So can we just point the finger at AFS for not keeping up at a reasonable pace or not developing something other than a paper document? 10 years seems to be just too long without some interim electronic based authority (which puts us back in the realm of the Catalog). Turgeon et al. (1998) is way out of date for mollusks and the same arguements Ben mentions are being made against using some of the more recent taxonomic monographs as official lists. I understand why there are camps and I certainly fall in or near certain ones, but at some point as scientists we have to put those objective hats back on and go with what the evidence says.

I just hope the situation with fishes doesn't end up like the one for North American herps, where two rival "standard" names lists are being generated, one by SSAR and one by CNAH.