Given the competitive side of human nature, it is inevitable that some people will wish to suppress the openly available (i.e. published) hypotheses of others in favour of their own. This opinion piece uses three molluscan examples at the level of genus - involving oysters (Magallana: Ostreidae), land snails (Powelliphanta: Rhytididae) and nudibranchs (Trinchesia: Trinchesiidae) - wherein workers suffering from 'revision shock' have used non-taxonomic courses of action to express their dissidence by attempting to suppress the taxonomy of others (i.e. by recommending avoidance, personal attacks, or omission, respectively). Although 'revision shock' is understandable following change at any taxonomic level and universal consensus within the research community is not always achievable, none of these courses for suppression is beneficial to scientific knowledge or endeavour in the long term. Such dissidence should be contained within the bounds of evidence-based published science; certainly not posted on social media sites. In the interests of objectivity and ethics, everyone should adopt the latest justified and openly published taxonomic hypothesis, even though they do not necessarily agree with it, and expect further changes with future research.
展开▼
