[Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies from Africa

[Roderic Page]

Hi Stephen,

The paper is free in the sense of beer, but that's not the same as open access (free as in liberty). The second page of the PDF states "all rights reserved". To be open access I'd expect an explicit statement giving permission to reuse. For background see http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285

Regards

Rod

Sent from my iPhone




On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:33 PM -0800, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>> wrote:

Oops, I see now that the paper is freely available! I was sure Rod said it wasn't! I still don't think that (m)any policy makers will take the time to read it though.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 14/12/15, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies      from    Africa
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: "'taxacom'" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:26 PM

 So, let me see if I get this right?
 Drawing people's attention to the things that really matter,
 *in a paper which isn't open access*! That's some strategy
 for saving the world ...

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 wrote:

  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
 dragonflies    from    Africa
  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
  Cc: "'taxacom'" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:14 PM

  Oh, and by the way... I
  spent a few hours going through the Odonata paper in some
  detail yesterday and I have to say that, speaking as one
 of
  the 0.000002% of the world's population who is a
  taxonomist, I was extremely impressed with the quality of
  the work (to whatever extent an ichthyologist can evaluate
  an entomological paper). Each species description spans
  several pages and includes robust information on taxonomic
  context, material studied, both genetic and morphological
  data, and range & ecology, and each description also
  includes multiple figures (including color) and an
 etymology
  section. The seven pages of introductory text are
 extremely
  well-written and covers a wide range of important topics
  that we often ramble endlessly about here on Taxacom, such
  as why naming species is important for conservation, why
  taxonomy needs more support, and why species MATTER (for
  understanding history, environment, evolution, and for
  humanity).  So it seems to me that the authors did a
 superb
  job both scientifically, and from the perspective of
 drawing
  people's attention to the issues that really matter.

  Aloha,
  Rich

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
  > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:15
  AM
  > To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs
  names: 60 new dragonflies from
  >
  Africa
  >
  > Rich,
  >
  > I didn't say
  significance of the taxonomy TO WHOM! Also, I very much
  doubt
  > that policy-makers get their
  information from the popular media!
  >
  > Stephen
  >
  >
  --------------------------------------------
  > On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
  wrote:
  >
  >  Subject:
  RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
  dragonflies    from
  >     Africa
  >  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
  <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
  >  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015,
  10:04 AM
  >
  >
  Sorry.... one more, then
  >  I'll
  shut up:
  >
  >  >
  So, I
  >  was just suggesting that media
  coverage should be  proportional to the  >
  > significance of the  taxonomy, and
  elevating 60 new dragonflies out of all  >
  > proportion seems wrong to me.
  >
  >  I would argue that
  media
  >  coverage should be proportional
  to the likelihood that it  will actually influence
  > non-biologists (particularly
  policy-makers).  There is a poor (perhaps even
  > inverse?)  correlation between what a
  good taxonomist will find of  significance,
  > and what will be significant to the rest
  of  the 99.999998% of the
  >
  population.  We don't need the  media coverage to
  inspire the ~15,000
  > taxonomists of
  the  world; it's the other 7 billion (ish) that
  we're  trying to
  > engage.
  >
  >  Aloha,
  >  Rich
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.