The “Kaiserian shortfall”, fishes, and the regulation of taxonomy by the Code

Abstract

Since 2013, there has been a heated debate over bad practices in zoological nomenclature and taxonomy (which have been called ‘taxonomic vandalism’) and what to do about them. Mostly, the critics have been calling ‘vandals’ those who propose new names based on the appropriation of results generated by other researchers. Some herpetologists have suggested establishing new ‘aspidonyms’ to replace nomina proposed in such circumstances, thus ignoring Article 23 of the Code, which establishes the principle of priority in zoological nomenclature. In turn, the Commission has decided against their request to suppress names proposed by ‘taxonomic vandals’, so the problem remains unsolved. Even though plagiarism and other similar, unethical behaviours are deplorable, I call attention to another phenomenon that is detrimental to nomenclature, i.e., the proposition of new nomina whose application is dubious due to poorly constructed diagnoses and other shortcomings that are mainly a result of insufficient peer review. Since the beginning of the 21^st century, dozens of Neotropical fish species have been described in substandard works. The fact that a proportion of the taxa that have been named lacks a workable diagnosis, while many of their names were proposed in unscientific or unethical circumstances and are rejected by those adhering to scientific principles, is herein referred to as ‘Kaiserian shortfall’ in honour of the herpetologist that has been leading the struggle against taxonomic vandalism. My approach to fighting against the Kaiserian shortfall includes changes to the Code, which in my view should regulate taxonomy as well as nomenclature. I suggest that: [1] only online papers be regarded as published work, observing Article 8.5; [2] only journals included in a list compiled by a consortium of scientific societies and approved by the Commission be suitable for the publication of nomenclatural acts; [3] a published work, in the sense of the Code, must include an exhaustive diagnosis for each taxon described or redescribed; and [4] only works issued in English can be regarded as published.