[Taxacom] [iczn-list] A Code-ified conundrum - a disclosure

[Scott Thomson]

Since this post does not seem to have appeared on the ICZN list at this
time I shall just respond on Taxacom.

I note that you have been an active proponent of the so-called Kaiser veto,
to overwrite the properly proposed code compliant names of others, but both
in Bull ZN and this list you have acted unethically and failed to disclose
your own vested interests in the matter.

I am a proponent of anything that gets taxonomy and nomenclature back to
where it should be. The situation needs to be addressed, a point even you
acknowledge. I have made one set of proposals for that, there have been
others, including yours.

A few short years ago you STOLE the work of eminent taxonomist Richard
Wells and renamed the genus Wollumbinia, Wells and other turtle taxa he had
properly described some years earlier.

No I did not actually. That is not how that happened. Even Wells
acknowledged I had been working on this taxa. The original work to
determine that the journal was not published was not done by me. I just
followed it once it was brought up. It has since been reiterated and
re-examined in first class journals, on many occasions. It is now accepted
world wide. Hal Cogger had his own view on this and I don't have a problem
with that. What other taxa are you referring to? Iverson et al, 2001 went
through and determined the validity of the various turtles described by W&W
1985, those that were valid we recommended usage, that included Flaviemys
purvisi, and the sub genus Macrochelodina. We made nomenclatural changes to
Macrochelodina to ensure its usage after the issues with Chelodina rugosa.
We ensured the name would remain available for the group which W&W
intended.

Ok the ones I described, the 5 species. Rheodytes devisi and Elseya
nadibadjagu are fossils, no one else had ever seen those. Elseya sterlingi
was deemed unavailable by Iverson et al, 2001, yes I am a co-author of that
it was reviewed by Hobart Smith among others to ensure our nomenclatural
compliance. So Elseya irwini was an undescribed species when John Cann
named it. I had nothing to do with that species, Elseya albagula is not the
same species as Elseya irwini and had never been named by anyone. If your
referring to Chelodina rankini, that also had been deemed unavailable
before Bill McCord and I named it, we of course named this taxa Chelodina
canni. Chelodina burrungandjii was also a completely unnamed species when
we named it. All the other names by W&W for turtles or the later Wells
papers may have been deemed unavailable for various reasons but have
certainly not been overwritten by me. I also am not necessarily the person
who deemed them unavailable. That has largely been done by Fritz and Havas
(2007) or the IUCN checklist in its various editions. I am not an author on
those.

To make things worse, you have continued to obsessively edit both Wikipedia
and other online sites

Yes I do edit wikipedia, and that and my own website are about it. I have
had some input into EOL and others but not much. Yes I do a lot of editing
on turtles. However when it came to Myuchelys I had that page reviewed by a
number of other editors before the version was finalised. In other words I
acknowledged my NPOV issue with that page and got others to check me. Many
of the other pages I bring into line with the IUCN checklist of turtles,
which I am not an author on, as it has been deemed by the Wikipedia Portal
for Reptiles and Amphibians and Turtles to be the nomenclatural work of
choice on turtles. The only pages I actively edited nomenclaturaly heavily
were the Chelodina pages, that was mostly to assist in the smooth swap of
the names Chelodina oblonga, colliei and rugosa. That issue had nothing to
do with Wells or W&W.

You Scott Thompson and your gang have also recently overwritten names from
people like Gray (Argyrophis) and others and seek to use "Hoser", "Wells",
"McCord" and others (all attacked by your group already) as a series of
stepping stones to a total annihilation of the system of zoological
nomenclature as we have known it for 2 centuries.

Why would I attack McCord? I have co-authored papers with him, including a
species description. The only turtles you tried to do something with was
handled by others, not me, ie Thomas et al, 2014. I can see that some of
what I said could be seen as an attack on Richard Wells, believe it or not
I actually have a lot of respect for Richard, I was not attacking him, I
was determining that the journal was not published. But that's done now. If
some people choose to ignore the published material on this even though not
one paper has been published to counter it, then so be it.

Anyway, Hi Ray, was wondering when it would be my turn.

Cheers, Scott


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Scott Thompson and ICZN List,
>
> I note that you have been an active proponent of the so-called Kaiser
> veto, to overwrite the properly proposed code compliant names of others,
> but both in Bull ZN and this list you have acted unethically and failed to
> disclose your own vested interests in the matter.
>
> A few short years ago you STOLE the work of eminent taxonomist Richard
> Wells and renamed the genus Wollumbinia, Wells and other turtle taxa he had
> properly described some years earlier.
> You used creative and bogus misrepresentation of the code in the same way
> Kaiser and Schleip have done recently in terms of my names to allege the
> Wells names were invalid at the time you coined your own invalid names in
> what can only be described as a fraudulent act of theft.
>
> Cogger’s definitive book of this year put your grand scheme in its place
> by REJECTING your names in favour of the ethically proposed scientifically
> described names of Wells who unlike yourself does act within the zoological
> rules. Cogger went further and said you had no justification whatsoever for
> your reckless and destabilizing act also condemning the dual nomenclature
> you had created.
>
> To make things worse, you have continued to obsessively edit both
> Wikipedia and other online sites promoting your invalid alternative
> non-code compliant nomenclature and promoted yourself as having described
> five turtles, knowing full well that most if not all your “work” has been
> stolen from Wells.
>
> For those who wish to check on all the above in terms of Mr. Scott
> Thompson merely, google “Wikipedia Myuchelys” and then look at the edit
> history and user details for editor. I have attached this material here as
> well.
>
> Unlike Scott Thompson, I have always cited and used the material of
> earlier workers in an ethical way. I have also used their names as proposed
> by them as opposed to stepping outside the code to recklessly overwrite
> them.
>
>
>
> You Scott Thompson and your gang have also recently overwritten names from
> people like Gray (Argyrophis) and others and seek to use "Hoser", "Wells",
> "McCord" and others (all attacked by your group already) as a series of
> stepping stones to a total annihilation of the system of zoological
> nomenclature as we have known it for 2 centuries.
>
> To clear the air here somewhat I note that Cogger (2014) was strident in
> his condemnation of Kaiser et al., but made no such comments against myself
> or Wells and used our proper names as he saw fit.
> I have always taken ethics to a level way higher than stipulated in the
> optional parts of the code and I for one would support ALL the current
> optional parts of the code being made mandatory (and more) as I have (as
> far as I am aware) complied with them all.
>
> Yours Faithfully
>
> Raymond Hoser
>
>
>
>
> Snakebustersâ <http://www.snakebusters.com.au> - Australia's best reptiles
> â
> The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
> Reptile partiesâ <http://www.reptileparties.com.au>, events, courses
> Phones: 9812 3322
> 0412 777 211
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:06:30 -0300
> From: scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
> To: iczn-list at afriherp.org
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] A Code-ified conundrum
>
> The code has been a good system, not without its flaws but what system is
> not guilty of that. However the system has relied on the basic willingness
> of scientists in general to behave ethically. I am not saying all are
> innocent of that, but for the entire history of the code the vast majority
> of scientists have willingly and pretty much without question followed the
> code, believed in its usefulness and seen it to be in the best interests of
> the naming of species and our work as taxonomists. This is being dismantled
> before our eyes. I do not wish to see that happen. It is happening and on a
> large scale. It is not just a few who are against this, it is not easy to
> just fix by taxonomists. Most of the people who have named species in the
> last 80 odd years have not only willingly met the letter of the code but
> also done their best to meet the recommendations and the code of ethics.
> They may not have always succeeded in that, but it was the odd name here
> and there within a given natural group that we divide ourselves up into, eg
> mammals, birds etc. That can be dealt with, either by first reviser, or a
> case if needed.
>
> In the entire history of the ICZN they have had to make some 2300 odd
> opinions, considering the expanse of time involved that's not that many,
> however if every single one of these names currently considered "vandalism"
> is brought before the commission they will have to make a third that number
> again. In just a few years. The workload has increased because of this, for
> everyone, the stress, the contempt. It is nothing but destructive to our
> science of taxonomy.
>
> Cheers, Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Cristian Ruiz Altaba <
> cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es> wrote:
>
> Exactly. The Code is highly democratic, and this is good. We only want to
> make sure nobody destroys this great system.
>
> It is imperative to make ethics a part of the requirements for
> availability of nomenclatural acts. For the vast majority of workers it
> will be superfluous. For vandals, an effective barrier.
>
> Best,
>
> Cristian
>
>
>
>
> -----Stephen Thorpe <thorpeste at yahoo.co.nz> escribió: -----
> Para: Paulo Corgosinho <pcorgo at gmail.com>
> De: Stephen Thorpe <thorpeste at yahoo.co.nz>
> Fecha: 15/07/2014 23:30
> cc: "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>, Cristian Ruiz
> Altaba <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
>
> Asunto: Re: [iczn-list] A Code-ified conundrum
>
> Paulo,
> You are going well beyond the bounds of the debate here! Books have always
> been a bona fide vehicle for taxonomy. I'm not sure what you mean by
> "discontinued publications". There are many more or less privately
> published journals which are accepted in taxonomy without any problems (in
> fact, I don't think that there is really such a thing as a non-privately
> published journal, unless it is published by the state!) Those who
> criticise Hoser's low scientific standards should just see this as an
> opportunity to show off their greater abilities by publishing better
> quality work. We really don't want to fall into a situation whereby anybody
> with access to better facilities can nullify the work of those not so
> fortunate!
>  Stephen
>
>
>   On Wednesday, 16 July 2014 9:09 AM, Paulo Corgosinho <pcorgo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>  Stephen,
> I agree with other colleagues when they say that both are offenders.  I
> particularly despise publications in private journals.  But,  as the code
> have many gray areas,  I understand that Hoser have acted in accordance
> with the code.  However,  the claims of the oposite groups are based on the
> supposed low scientific quality of Hoser work.  I don't want to go to this
> merit.  But to avoid such problems,  the code must forbide Discontinued
> publications as well as book publications.  If not,  just accept those
> names in unpublished PhD thesis as valid.
> Paulo Corgosinho
> On Jul 15, 2014 8:38 PM, "Stephen Thorpe" < thorpeste at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>  > Stealing the work of others is the offense<
>
>  But who is the offender, Hoser or those who rename his taxa??
>
>
>   On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 11:46 PM, Cristian Ruiz Altaba <
> cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es> wrote:
>
>
>  My opinion is very much on Doug's side, although a little further down
> the line.
>
> Of course we all think the Code should be sufficient to rule taxonomy, but
> that can only be possible if taxonomists abide by the rules of chivalry. As
> soon as someone enters the field with questionable ethics, grossly
> distorting the Code's spirit under the disguise of a Code-compliant
> colleague, our system falls apart.
>
> What some herpetologists are doing is what anyone caring for an ethical
> system would do (even Mr Gandhi): keep the weapon away from the offender.
> The issue is not about owning a printer, or e-publication. It affects the
> very kernel of taxonomy as science.
>
> To be a player in science means you abide by the Golden Rule. Everything
> else is open to scrutiny and discussion. But anyone caught in plagiarism
> loses the necessary credentials to remain a legitimate
> colleague. Stealing the work of others is the offense. When someone does
> this to any taxonomist, we are all victims. And at some point someone has
> to say there's enough.
>
> The Commission has to face the dilemma. Either we keep pretending we are
> not able to put some order and watch Rome burn, or ethics get straight into
> the requirements for availability.
>
> I did respond (extensively) to the call for comments, and am now even more
> convinced of the need to make this step forward.
>
> All the best,
>
> Cristian
>
>
>
> Cristian Ruiz Altaba
> *Director, Paratge natural de la serra de Tramuntana *
>
>
> *Direcció General de Medi Natural, Educació Ambiental i Canvi Climàtic
> Conselleria d'Agricultura, Medi Ambient i TerritoriGovern de les Illes
> Balears*
>
>
> -----"iczn-list" < iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org> escribió: -----
>  Para: Doug Yanega < dyanega at ucr.edu>, " iczn-list at afriherp.org" <
> iczn-list at afriherp.org>
> De: Stephen Thorpe
> Enviado por: "iczn-list"
> Fecha: 14/07/2014 23:52
> Asunto: Re: [iczn-list] A Code-ified conundrum
>
>  Doug,
> I find that you don't quite present a fully balanced summary of the Hoser
> debate. Specifically, the "mainstream hepretological community" are also
> quite clearly behaving somewhat like twelve year olds in a school yard, by
> bullying Hoser so that they can get their names on new taxa (as name
> authority). The recent renaming of some Hoser taxa, without changing the
> taxon concepts in any way, makes this clear. Of course they don't feel that
> Hoser deserves to be taxon authority, given the generally low standard of
> his taxonomy, and political rants/personal attacks which tend to accompany
> his descriptions. However, if we just focus on the nomenclatural issues,
> Hoser's name as an authority is really no worse to the multitudes of others
> who have proposed new replacement names for homonyms, thereby gaining
> authority on those names without having done a shred of science. In
> summary, I suggest that there is at least some unethical behaviour on both
> sides of the Hoser debate.
>  Cheers,
> Stephen
>
>
>  On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 5:44 AM, Doug Yanega < dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/13/14 11:50 PM, Hinrich Kaiser wrote:
>
> As has been stated previously on this forum, approaching the Code from
> this angle may be problematic because the Code basically admits names from
> any kind of publication, without an assessment of the veracity of the
> science. But this is wrong by any definition of scientific methodology. And
> herein lies the conundrum. If Hoser's names are NOT Code-compliant, then
> the Code has nothing to say about them. If they are Code-compliant, then
> anyone with a computer and a home printer can create their own taxonomy.
> Science, which depends to a significant degree on public funding, needs
> checks and balances. If the Code cannot provide them, what is its position
> in the scientific endeavor of taxonomy?
>
> Should the ICZN decide that Hoser's genus Spracklandus is available, then
> the next logical step is to request action from the Commission under
> Article 81 of the Code, but until then herpetologists can cite our paper if
> they feel Hoser's names are incompatible with scientific work.
>
> It is evident to me that both sides of this debate are not entirely clear
> on just what role the Commission and Code can play in such a situation.
> Though I've made several comments in the past to emphasize the fundamental
> points, this latest exchange prompts me one more time to state the obvious,
> as painful as it may be:
>
> The Code - as in "the formal Articles for which compliance is deemed
> mandatory" - sets the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM standards, and those standards are
> exceedingly LOW (we can tell how low they are because we are here debating
> whether Hoser's works pass muster; works which would be considered
> unpublishable in * any other field of science*). The standards are low
> because the Code has to contend with the vast history of taxonomy and
> nomenclature, and if the bar is set too high, then all sorts of perfectly
> good taxonomic works would be excluded for what - under certain
> circumstances (sometimes common, sometimes not) - could be argued are mere
> technicalities. We, as a community, have agreed that this is for the
> overall good, and it's worked pretty darn well up until now. This is why a
> fair portion of the Code is devoted to Recommendations, which convey a much
> higher set of standards; standards that we would * prefer* people to
> adhere to, but which we have decided we *cannot* insist upon. **
>
> Now, we are contending with an author who uses the gap between the
> Articles and the Recommendations as a weapon; they finesse and finagle with
> semantics so as to ARGUABLY make their work Code-compliant, but at the same
> time violate a huge assortment of Recommendations with impunity, including
> all of the guidelines in Code Appendix A (the "Code of Ethics"). This is
> what I mean by violation of the spirit of the Code. Historically, there
> have been very few authors who have knowingly violated so many of the
> Code's Recommendations (in part because the Code is a somewhat recent
> thing), or with such frequency. Hoser defies whole sections of the Code on
> one hand, while holding other parts of the Code as a shield in the other
> hand to deflect criticism, as if this was a schoolyard argument among
> 12-year-olds (e.g., "The Code only says that a type specimen has to be
> *designated*, it does not say that a type specimen has to actually *exist*
> - NEENER NEENER").
>
> Well, here's the thing: we are not 12-year-olds in a schoolyard, and a
> very large number of people are tired of this behavior. The herpetological
> community is, in essence, saying "We want herpetological works to adhere to
> a HIGHER standard than the bare minimum set by the Code, and we want to
> form a collective agreement across our discipline to enforce such
> standards, by * ignoring* works that do not meet them."
>
> Yes, this is a proverbial can of worms, but the Commission cannot PREVENT
> members of a taxonomic discipline from establishing their own rules which
> are not provided for by the Code. Lepidopterists have collectively decided
> to abandon gender agreement, which is VERY plainly a violation of the Code,
> but no Commission ruling is going to * prevent* them from doing it. I'm
> not happy about that situation, nor - I suspect - are many of the other
> Commissioners, but since we are only agents of the community we serve, we
> have no power to enforce compliance; compliance is voluntary, and always
> has been. We just do our best to minimize conflicts between the community
> and the Code, so people will not feel compelled to break or bend the rules.
> Moreover, in THIS case, the particular rules that the herpetologists are
> looking to enforce are also, arguably, already embedded in the Code; they
> can be viewed as either an explicit but novel interpretation of existing
> Articles (e.g., 8.1.1), or implicit elevation of various Recommendations to
> the point where they are treated as if they were mandatory.
>
> In other words, even though the herpetologists are trying to bend or break
> the rules, they are doing so without violating the spirit of the Code. The
> point is this: if you want to prevent people from imposing * standards* *above
> and beyond the Code*, then I don't see how you can stop them, AND it's
> quite possible that we could be collectively better off if they DO raise
> the bar a little higher (as I've noted, if no one publishing in
> peer-reviewed journals treats Hoser's names as available, then stability
> WILL be achieved, even if this is not done in accordance with the Code).
> Speaking as a Commissioner, I don't approve, but speaking as a taxonomist,
> I hope they prevail. I'm all for higher standards, and while I'd * truly*
> prefer it if we could build such standards *into* the Code, if we can't,
> then as long as there is consensus (barring the fringe element), I won't be
> unhappy.
>
>
> ** - I will remind people that Mark Harvey and I solicited input from the
> community several months ago, regarding whether the Code should or should
> not be modified so that ethical issues - such as those presently listed in
> Appendix A - would be taken into formal consideration when deciding the
> availability of works and names. I will further note that, to our
> disappointment, not only did we not receive very many responses, but many
> of the responses we * did* get talked only about Hoser, and NOT about the
> general question of how taxonomists feel about including ethics in the
> Code, which is * explicitly* what we wanted to assess. The public
> commentary period is still open, and the original Call for Comments is
> still available here: http://iczn.org/node/40405 - note the instructions
> specify that comments be sent by email to iczn at nhm.ac.uk
>
> BTW: as an aside to Ross Wellington - my name is not Yanaga, and I have
> not and never will hold an academic position. I'm a collection manager who
> makes $20 an hour (and goes into the field so I know the fauna and bring in
> specimens - I've had more species named after me than I have named myself),
> so there's no ivory tower nonsense coming from me. Buy a clue, please.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
>  iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
> Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
> Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
> Avenida Nazaré, 481
> Ipiranga
> 04263-000, São Paulo, SP
> Brasil
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> Skype: Faendalimas
> Mobile Phone: +55 11 996 48 5668
>
> _______________________________________________ iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>


-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481
Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP
Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone: +55 11 996 48 5668