[Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory

[Stephen Thorpe]

> More detail that's difficult to respond to because it isn't published. But 
>okay, I have a response of sorts. Why then is this genus Paracymus listed in 
>"Coleoptera genera of New Zealand", date 2003, yes 2003, authored by W, X, Y,  a 
>guy called *Stephen Thorpe*, and Z? And this team said "The following list is 
>based on the most recent literature". Did you guys make a mistake too?  
>Incredible that you didn't pick it up Stephen! Tut, tut. :)  
>


Do I have to explain EVERYTHING in words of one syllable? The genus Paracymus 
DOES occur in N.Z., and I did neither say nor imply that it didn't. The genus is 
represented here by one species, probably adventive, also found in Australia, 
called Paracymus pygmaeus. The relevant entry in the Inventory for Paracymus is:

ANACAENINIParacymus pygmaeus (Macleay, 1871) FParacymus n. sp. E F

I don't dispute P. pygmaeus, but where did they get the other one from????? 
BTW, Paracymus was transferred out of ANACAENINI in 2007 to LACCOBIINI, but they 
seem to have overlooked that

>And the relevance of a lead author from Spain (with a local author) is?

Just free extra information, Geoff! :)

Stephen





________________________________
From: Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 17 November, 2010 7:35:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] taxacom NZ Inventory


On 16 Nov 2010 at 17:47, Stephen Thorpe wrote:

> Geoff,
> 
> Thanks for the full reply, as I can now see exactly where we disagree:
> 
> >You've explained that you were offered two opportunities to be involved in 
>this 
>
> >project, first as an author, then as a reviewer. Unfortunately for everybody 
> >you, presumably the best expert to do a particular segment, declined both of 
> >them. It's not a good look that you are now complaining that it is an inferior 
>
> >product to what you could have done. Why would we not suspect this is partly 
> >some sort of sour grapes reaction on your part?
> 
> Well, that is one way of looking at it, but not mine. I initially turned down 
>an 
>
> opportunity to freely contribute to it because I did not think that the format 

> restrictions would do it justice (one of those being the static nature of hard 

> copy checklists*, and lack of full synonymies). There were also certain other 
> problems which I really don't want to discuss, but suffice it to say that I was 
>
> wary of a repeat of certain past experiences of this kind. 

Well, I have no idea of what you could be referring to. You choose to become an 
author or not become an author when authorship is offered. 


[ big cut] 

> For example, there is a record of a Paracymus n.sp. (endemic, 
> freshwater) [no other information]. That's kinda surprising if you know the 
> group in the N.Z. context! Funny thing, though, that there is a 1970 literature 
>
> record of a single specimen of Paracymus sp. (of unknown identity). Even 
>funnier 
>
> that this very specimen was determined (by a world authority, and published in 

> 2000) to be an introduced and terrestrial species of another genus in the same 

> family, but otherwise unrelated. But, if you trust the Inventory, the record 
> therein could be based on a specimen or specimens in any collection anywhere in 
>
> the world, identified by any one or more of a number of people, or perhaps they 
>
> discovered that the second ID was based on a specimen wrongly thought to be the 
>
> 1970 specimen, and the latter record was true after all??? We just don't know, 

> and THAT is where I have a problem ...

More detail that's difficult to respond to because it isn't published. But okay, 
I have a response of sorts. Why then is this genus Paracymus listed in 
"Coleoptera genera of New Zealand", date 2003, yes 2003, authored by W, X, Y,  a 
guy called *Stephen Thorpe*, and Z? And this team said "The following list is 
based on the most recent literature". Did you guys make a mistake too?  
Incredible that you didn't pick it up Stephen! Tut, tut. :)  


> * today, 4 new species of beetle were described from N.Z. (by a lead author 
>from 
>
> Spain). Those are now on Wikispecies, but not, of course, in the Inventory...  


And the relevance of a lead author from Spain (with a local author) is?

Geoff