I’ll preface my question by saying I know this is something that is, to a degree, individual and down to the preference of the curator. I’d just like to ask if iNat does have a consistent standard for nomenclatural recognition and, specifically, what that standard is for names in theses.
I am prompted to ask this as I notice that there is a species of bug, Pseudoloxops woodwardi, that is currently recognised on iNat. The name was originally proposed in a Masters thesis (available here), but the taxon in question was never subsequently formally published anywhere. Unhelpfully, ICZN Articles 8 and 9 (the sections of the nomenclatural code that govern validity of names) do not explicitly state that theses do not count as formal publications but, by general standards in the field, names first proposed in theses are not recognised as valid unless subsequently published in peer-reviewed outlets.
Theses are problematic as they sit in grey areas for pretty much every aspect of the ICZN statutes. Are they peer-reviewed? Yes, but often not by actual field experts; often it’s internal to a faculty or institution. Are they made freely available, whether by purchase or for free? Yes, if you don’t count the access embargoes imposed on them by institutions for several years. Do they constitute part of the permanent record? Once post-embargo, I suppose so, especially if hard copies are printed to be held in libraries and the institutes do things like get DOIs (as this one has); not everyone does. Are physical copies available? Not always and not always publicly. Are they electronically valid? If registered with ZooBank, yes (this one, like most, isn’t).
I am guessing the curators who chose to recognise this name have done so considering all the above and came down on the side of deciding the conditions were satisfied. Personally, I tend to disagree, and others in literature have as well, e.g. this recent paper which acknowledges the existence of the thesis and its names, but does not apply them. If, however, iNat has a ruleset that states such names should be recognised, I’ll pipe down about it (though I will not provide the ID to my own observations of the taxon and will elect to maintain them at genus level).
This is hopefully the case but isn’t necessarily true; there are a lot of curators and some are more careful than others. E.g.:
For an individual species the best response would be to create a flag on the species and discuss its validity there. If there’s a pattern of things like this happening then a broader guideline might be necessary…
As far as I know from seeing rather similar situations, a name proposed in an unpublished thesis or dissertation is not a valid recognized name until it appears in a journal, book, monograph, etc. with proper description. In other words, until it is published. But this could be a bit of a gray area.
I wonder if someone other than the thesis author were to use this proposed name in a published work along with a description, if that second author would henceforth be recognized as the describer of the taxon. I’ve seen a situation like that where the author of a published work was credited as the describer when they accidentally used a name with a description that hadn’t yet been formally published.
I’m pretty sure iNat does not have a policy specific to theses. But it does have general policies that vary by taxa: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#policies. Since this is Australia, and there’s no global or regional authority for insects, I think the spirit of the iNat policy is to hold off until the species has started appearing in print or online in reputable sources before including it in the iNat taxonomy.
I think this will remain a gray area which can be argued in a friendly manner–preferably over a beer–as long as everyone accepts that there won’t be an official winner of the argument. Also, any such argument must refer to the wording in the code itself–not what one thinks it might say.
I’ve definitely seen recognized taxa that were described in recent less-formal journals that were not subject to peer review. Peer review itself is a somewhat squishy concept. Of course, older names from early-mid 20th century and back in time were not subjected to peer review as we recognize it, or at all.
But it seems to me that if iNat relies on outside references to determine what taxonomy we use, we should not be on the cutting edge of accepting taxa that have not been properly evaluated first. If you can’t find any usage of a taxon other than on iNat, then it probably shouldn’t be here.
At least for plants, we have the Code of Nomenclature articles:
29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN).
and
30.9. Publication on or after 1 January 1953 of an independent non-serial work stated to be a thesis submitted to a university or other institute of education for the purpose of obtaining a degree does not constitute effective publication unless the work includes an explicit statement (referring to the requirements of the Code for effective publication) or other internal evidence that it is regarded as an effective publication by its author or publisher.
Note that 30.9 refers to Publication of a thesis. Most theses and dissertations are considered to be unpublished.
I wonder if someone other than the thesis author were to use this proposed name in a published work along with a description, if that second author would henceforth be recognized as the describer of the taxon.
If they described it, then theoretically yes, though it’d be hugely unethical if they didn’t produce their own type-series (i.e. go out and collect a bunch of their own specimens) or, at the very least, gain possession of the originally collected specimens and use them as the basis for description (the implication of that being they got the consent of the thesis writer and their supervisor). If they just took that thesis’s description wholesale and slapped their name on it without the permission of the thesis author, that’s just simple plagiarism. In cases of accidental attribution like your example, the onus will be on that author to declaim recognition if they didn’t actually describe it, and the name would likely be invalidated anyway given most such examples wouldn’t actually be accompanied by a proper description.
That’s insightful, thanks. I’m a pretty dogmatic taxonomist, so the idea that standard protocol on iNat is to view taxonomy as subjective is a little jarring to me, though I’ll accept it. My personal view is that it isn’t subjective, that personally disagreeing with a particular concept means nothing if you don’t make that disagreement explicit in literature, and whatever is the most recent name is the right one (and if someone disagrees with it, let them write the next paper correcting it). But I know that view is wrought with flaws and exceptions, and I’d much rather my beers with people be pleasant, so I don’t regard it as my place to dictate it to anyone!
Based on those guidelines, though, in the specific case I’ve highlighted above, that name really shouldn’t be recognised and I’ll see what I can do to flag it. The name is not recognised or used anywhere other than the thesis and iNat, it doesn’t appear in any of the Australian standard resources (Australian Faunal Directory and Atlas of Living Australia), and given there has been some movement in the world of Pseudoloxops taxonomy in the South Pacific recently, there is a real risk that that taxon will end up described by someone other than the thesis author, very probably with a different name.