[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Fri Jan 22 16:29:25 CST 2016
He is NOT the Executive Secretary, he is the Secretary-General! Two
different positions, no provision for employment is made for the S-G.
You nitpick on everything anyone else says, try to keep up on what you
say. Also, there does not seem to be any conflict of interest
definition for the ICZN, so that would presumably not apply anyway.
On 1/22/2016 3:20 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> "The Executive Secretary may be an employee of an appropriate body, such as the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature"
>
> One might question the appropriateness of an Executive Secretary being the owner of a commercial publishing house whose published output is subject to regulation by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 23/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Saturday, 23 January, 2016, 10:49 AM
>
> Oops, looked at the wrong
> constitution, ITZN, not ICZN. There is a
> Secretary-General possible, but the position has no duties
> specified,
> and certainly is not head of anything.
>
> "Article 9. Secretariat. The Council may appoint an
> Executive Secretary
> for such a term and with such duties as may be fixed in the
> Bylaws; a
> member of the Commission may be appointed similarly as
> Secretary-General. The Executive Secretary may be an
> employee of an
> appropriate body, such as the International Trust for
> Zoological
> Nomenclature."
>
> Mike
>
> On 1/22/2016 2:32 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
> > Well, actually, if you consult the Constitution and
> By-Laws of the
> > ICZN there is no such thing as a Secretary-General, so
> a person with
> > that title cannot actually be head of anything.
> Stephen, don't
> > believe everything you read on the internet!.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 1/22/2016 2:29 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> >> Well, the article I linked to states [quote]One of
> his top priorities
> >> in his new job would be to ensure the
> commission’s long term
> >> viability[unquote]
> >>
> >> So, what does the president do, then?
> >>
> >> It is really splitting hairs to criticize my use of
> the vague term
> >> "head of"! It is near enough to make my point.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> On Sat, 23/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names
> online published - one new species
> >> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> Received: Saturday, 23 January,
> 2016, 10:10 AM
> >> Isn't the head of the ICZN
> a
> >> President? Did someone
> change the By-Laws?
> >> On 1/22/2016 2:03 PM,
> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> >> > Rich,
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to have to reply to
> some of your comments
> >> individually. Firstly:
> >> >
> >> >> Finally, can you
> elaborate on what you mean by this
> >> statement:
> >> >> "BTW, congrats to Z.-Q.
> Zhang on his recent
> >> appointment as head of the ICZN"
> >> >> ?
> >> > This is what I mean:
> >> http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about/news/snippets/researcher-in-nz-first
> >> >
> >> > Looks like I do know
> something that you don't! :)
> >> >
> >> > Stephen
> >> >
> >> >
> --------------------------------------------
> >> > On Sat, 23/1/16, Richard Pyle
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Subject: RE:
> [Taxacom] two names
> >> online published - one new
> species
> >> > To:
> "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>,
> >> "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> >> > Received:
> Saturday, 23 January, 2016,
> >> 9:55 AM
> >> >
> >> > Hi Stephen,
> >> >
> >> > Let me
> clarify... I scale the
> >> > magnitude of
> the issue using a
> >> baseline of paper-based
> >> > publications
> and/or the situation as
> >> it existed prior to the
> >> > amendment
> for electronic
> >> publication. I often see
> lots of
> >> > frantic
> arm-waving and other forms of
> >> virtual panic about
> >> > one crisis
> or another related to
> >> electronic publication.
> >> > To be sure,
> there are some new
> >> problems that have been
> >> > introduced
> with the Amendment, and
> >> CERTAINLY the Amendment
> >> > did not
> solve all of the problems that
> >> existed before it
> >> > (nor could
> it have). As Doug has
> >> already alluded to, the
> >> > Amendment
> represents a compromise
> >> between many different
> >> > possible
> approaches, and ultimately
> >> reflects the best
> >> > consensus of
> the community at the
> >> time.
> >> >
> >> > One thing
> the Amendment has done is
> >> shine a
> >> > spotlight on
> problems that have
> >> existed for a long time, but
> >> > which people
> scarcely noticed
> >> before. That they went
> >> > unnoticed
> before doesn't mean that
> >> they were any less
> >> > serious
> before; only that many of us
> >> were blissfully
> >> > ignorant.
> One might argue that
> >> an "ignorance is
> >> > bliss"
> approach is warranted, but it
> >> seems incompatible
> >> > to basic
> scientific principles that we
> >> taxonomists would
> >> > generally
> like to adhere to.
> >> >
> >> > So, here are
> some examples of things
> >> that are
> >> > helpful:
> >> > - Specific
> observations about how
> >> > the existing
> rules fail in particular
> >> circumstances
> >> > -
> Constructive suggestions on how the
> >> next
> >> > edition of
> the Code can be improved to
> >> minimize such
> >> > failures
> >> >
> >> > And here are
> some
> >> > examples of
> things that are not
> >> helpful:
> >> > -
> >> > Frantic
> arm-waving and hyperbolic
> >> exclamations about how the
> >> > nomenclatural
> sky is falling.
> >> > -
> >> > Misrepresentation
> of problems with the
> >> Code that have been
> >> > illuminated
> by the Amendment for
> >> electronic publication as
> >> > though they
> were *caused* by the
> >> Amendment (when in most
> >> > cases they
> were, in fact, extant prior
> >> to the Amendment, and
> >> > in many
> cases at least mitigated to
> >> some extent by the
> >> > Amendment).
> >> > -
> Representing personal
> >> > interpretations
> about how the Code
> >> "should" be,
> >> > with what is
> actually written in the
> >> Code.
> >> > -
> >> > Utterly
> bogus (and, frankly,
> >> childish) accusations that
> >> > the
> Amendment was somehow nefariously
> >> influenced by the
> >> > needs/demands
> of the for-profit
> >> publishing community.
> >> >
> >> > Note:
> Stephen, I am not
> >> > necessarily
> accusing you of all these
> >> things; but I've
> >> > seen
> examples of them fly through
> >> Taxacom and other venues
> >> > on a regular
> basis.
> >> >
> >> > In
> >> > answer to
> some of your specific
> >> questions: every edit to
> >> > every record
> in ZooBank is logged with
> >> information on what
> >> > field was
> changed, what the previous
> >> and new values are, who
> >> > changed
> them, and exactly (to the
> >> nearest millisecond, UTC
> >> > time) when
> the change was made. So,
> >> for example, if you
> >> > edited
> archive info into the Zoobank
> >> record for Systematic
> >> > Entomology,
> there would be a record of
> >> the fact that you
> >> > edited it,
> and exactly when you edited
> >> it. Not all of this
> >> > information
> is visible on the ZooBank
> >> website, but as soon
> >> > as we
> receive the next round of
> >> ZooBank development funding,
> >> > much of it
> will be added. In the
> >> meantime, I am happy to
> >> > retrieve and
> provide this information
> >> for any field of any
> >> > record.
> >> >
> >> > Finally, can
> you
> >> > elaborate on
> what you mean by this
> >> statement:
> >> > "BTW,
> congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang on his
> >> > recent
> appointment as head of the
> >> ICZN"
> >> > ?
> >> >
> >> > Either you
> >> > know
> something that I don't, or this
> >> serves as one more
> >> > example
> reflecting the reliability of
> >> your insights on the
> >> > ICZN and its
> functions.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, and
> Aloha,
> >> > Rich
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Richard L.
> >> > Pyle, PhD
> >> > Database
> Coordinator for Natural
> >> > Sciences |
> Associate Zoologist in
> >> Ichthyology | Dive Safety
> >> > Officer
> >> > Department
> of Natural Sciences,
> >> > Bishop
> Museum, 1525 Bernice St.,
> >> Honolulu, HI 96817
> >> > Ph:
> (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> >> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >> > http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> -----Original
> >> > Message-----
> >> > > From:
> Stephen Thorpe
> >> > [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> >> > > Sent:
> Friday, January 22, 2016
> >> 10:29 AM
> >> > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> >> > 'engel';
> 'Doug Yanega';
> >> > >
> >> > deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >> > >
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] two names
> >> online
> >> > published -
> one new species
> >> > >
> >> > > The
> issue may not be "huge", but
> >> > I think it
> is probably bigger than
> >> you
> >> > >
> >> > indicate.
> There can be problems in
> >> determining "the
> >> > earliest
> date on which all
> >> > > of the
> >> > requirements
> have been met". Adding to
> >> this problem is
> >> > the fact
> that
> >> > > many
> publishers are
> >> > publishing
> print editions online ahead
> >> of actual print
> >> > >
> (sometimes by months). We have
> >> already
> >> > seen Frank
> Krell suggest, quite
> >> > >
> >> > erroneously
> in my view, that "March
> >> 2016" must be
> >> > a mistake on
> the
> >> > >
> Cretaceous Research
> >> > website. In
> fact, it is no mistake!
> >> They have published
> >> > > their
> March 2016 print edition
> >> online
> >> > already, but
> it presumably won't be
> >> > >
> >> > actually
> printed until March! One, I
> >> suppose only fairly
> >> > minor
> problem,
> >> > >
> concerns the nominal
> >> > year of
> publication for taxon names,
> >> which is
> >> > >
> frequently widely appended to the
> >> names
> >> > (i.e., Aus
> bus Author, YEAR). It is
> >> > > now
> >> > very hard to
> choose between one year
> >> and the next (if online
> >> > versions
> >> > > are
> published in one year, but
> >> > the print
> version isn't actually
> >> printed until the
> >> > >
> following year). Another problem
> >> is that
> >> > many people
> have wasted a
> >> > >
> significant
> >> > amount of
> time doing preregistrations
> >> on ZooBank that were
> >> > in
> >> > > fact
> pointless. They thought
> >> that
> >> > they were
> validly publishing online
> >> first!
> >> > > There
> are also issues relating to
> >> how easy
> >> > it might be
> to make apparently
> >> > >
> >> > retroactive
> edits on ZooBank, which
> >> cannot be (at least not
> >> > publicly)
> >> > >
> datestamped (for example,
> >> > what would
> happen if I now edited
> >> archive info
> >> > > into
> the Zoobank record for
> >> Systematic
> >> > Entomology?)
> Regrettably, I think
> >> > > that
> >> > in the rush
> to push through a Zootaxa
> >> optimised electronic
> >> > amendment,
> >> > > the
> ICZN has created rather
> >> > a confusing
> mess for many authors and
> >> > >
> >> > publishers
> to try to deal with. BTW,
> >> congrats to Z.-Q. Zhang
> >> > on his
> recent
> >> > >
> appointment as head of
> >> > the ICZN (I
> would have thought that
> >> there was
> >> > > rather
> a big COI involved there,
> >> but
> >> > apparently
> not...)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> Stephen
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > > On Fri,
> 22/1/16, Richard Pyle
> >> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> Subject:
> >> > RE:
> [Taxacom] two names online
> >> published - one new
> >> > species
> >> > >
> To: "'Stephen
> >> > Thorpe'"
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> >> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > "'engel'"
> <msengel at ku.edu>,
> >> > "'Doug
> >> > >
> Yanega'"
> >> > <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> >> > >
> Received: Friday, 22
> >> January, 2016, 6:45
> >> > PM
> >> > >
> >> > >
> Well,
> >> > it's
> neither
> >> > >
> new, nor huge*.
> >> > But it is a
> problem, and it was a
> >> problem that was
> >> > >
> recognized prior to the
> >> publication of
> >> > the
> Amendment, and one which
> >> the
> >> > >
> >> > Commissioners
> have discussed
> >> several times.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> The
> >> > >
> fundamental question that
> >> we do not have
> >> > a definitive
> answer for yet
> >> (even
> >> > >
> >> > though we
> have an over-abundance of
> >> opinions), is how to
> >> > establish
> the
> >> > > date of
> publication for
> >> > purposes
> of priority, when the
> >> following dates are
> >> > >
> non-identical:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> 1) The date on which the
> >> > >
> publication was registered
> >> in
> >> > ZooBank.
> >> > >
> 2)
> >> > >
> >> > The date of
> publication as stated in
> >> the ZooBank record.
> >> > >
> 3) The date of publication
> >> as stated in
> >> > the
> work itself.
> >> > >
> 4) The date on
> >> > which the
> first
> >> > >
> electronic edition of
> >> > the work was
> obtainable.
> >> > >
> 5) The date
> >> > on which the
> ISSN or ISBN was
> >> added to the ZooBank
> >> > record.
> >> > >
> 6) The date on which
> >> > >
> the Intended archive was
> >> added to the
> >> > ZooBank
> record.
> >> > >
> 7) The date on which
> >> > a revised
> version of the
> >> electronic edition of the work
> >> > > was
> obtainable (e.g.,
> >> containing
> >> > evidence of
> registration).
> >> > >
> 8) The
> >> > >
> date on which paper copies
> >> were
> >> > obtainable.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > There are
> other dates as well
> >> > >
> (e.g.,
> >> > the date of
> publication as stated in
> >> the paper edition of
> >> > the work,
> >> > > etc.),
> but I hope you get the
> >> > point
> that it's not a simple
> >> issue, because there
> >> > > are
> many possible dates
> >> associated with
> >> > a given
> work.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > So... which
> is the date of
> >> > >
> >> > publication
> for purposes of
> >> priority? Certainly, most
> >> > would agree
> that it
> >> > > cannot
> be prior to
> >> > #4 (assuming
> the above list is
> >> in chronological
> >> > >
> sequence). Certainly,
> >> not after #8
> >> > (provided
> the paper edition meets all
> >> > >
> >> > other
> criteria of the code for
> >> paper-based
> >> > publications).
> Most
> >> > >
> Commissioners I
> >> > have
> discussed this with agree that
> >> the logical answer
> >> > is,
> >> > >
> generally "the earliest date
> >> > on
> which all of the requirements
> >> have been
> >> > >
> met". As #2 has
> >> no
> >> > bearing on
> any article in the
> >> Code, we can probably
> >> > > ignore
> that one. But all
> >> the others
> >> > are in
> potential play. One could
> >> argue
> >> > >
> (pretty effectively, in
> >> fact), that
> >> > while the
> Code requires
> >> electronic works to
> >> > > include
> the date of publication
> >> to be
> >> > stated
> within the work itself, there
> >> is no
> >> > >
> requirement that it be the
> >> *correct*
> >> > date of
> publication. Indeed, if
> >> such a
> >> > >
> requirement was, in fact, part of
> >> the Code
> >> > (or how the
> Code is
> >> interpreted),
> >> > >
> >> > stability
> would most likely suffer.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> Until there is clarity on
> >> this
> >> > >
> issue, either by
> >> Declaration, Amendment,
> >> > formal
> statement, or ratified
> >> 5th
> >> > >
> >> > Edition by
> the Commission, it seems to
> >> me (and most others
> >> > I've
> discussed it
> >> > > with),
> that the
> >> > trusty "the
> earliest date on which all
> >> of the
> >> > requirements
> >> > > have
> been met"
> >> > approach
> seems the most logical
> >> to use as a guideline.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> Aloha,
> >> > >
> Rich
> >> > >
> >> > >
> *The reason it's not a
> >> > "huge"
> >> > >
> issue is that it
> >> > ultimately
> affects date of publication
> >> for purposes of
> >> > priority;
> >> > > and
> while there may be a few
> >> > cases
> where potentially
> >> competing names
> >> > > both
> fall within the "grey
> >> > zone", there
> certainly aren't many.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> > -----Original
> >> > >
> Message-----
> >> > >
> >
> >> > From:
> Stephen Thorpe
> >> > >
> [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> >> > >
> > Sent: Thursday,
> >> January 21, 2016
> >> > 11:53
> AM > To:
> >> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> >> > engel; Doug
> Yanega > Cc:
> >> > > deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >> > >
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names
> >> online
> >> > >
> published - one new species
> >> > >
> >> > Doug (CC
> Rich), > >
> >> I think we may have
> >> > > just
> stumbled upon a huge
> >> problem:
> >> > "the
> ZooBank >
> >> registration state both
> >> > > the
> name of an electronic
> >> archive
> >> > intended
> to > preserve the
> >> work and ..."
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> > I
> >> > have
> >> > >
> always assumed that the
> >> > publisher
> does this, once for
> >> each journal?
> >> > >
> > Certainly Magnolia
> >> Press does
> >> > >
> it for Zootaxa (not
> >> surprisingly,
> >> > perhaps,
> since > the whole
> >> electronic
> >> > >
> amendment is arguably
> >> optimised for
> >> > Zootaxa).
> How > many
> >> authors think
> >> > > to
> worry about the archive when
> >> > registering
> articles on
> >> > ZooBank? Bugger
> >> > > all!
> >> > >
> Looking at
> >> > some random
> records on ZooBank, I'm
> >> now > worried
> >> > that a
> >> > > large
> number of them fail
> >> this
> >> > requirement!
> I think we need
> >> > some
> >> > >
> clarification here (Rich?)
> >> > >
> >> > Stephen
> > >
> >> > >
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> > >
> > On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug
> >> Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> >> > >
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> > Subject:
> >> > >
> >> > Re:
> [Taxacom] two names online
> >> published - one new
> >> > species
> > To:
> >> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> >> > "engel"
> <msengel at ku.edu>
> >> > >
> Received:
> >> > > Friday,
> 22 January,
> >> > 2016,
> >> > >
> 10:17 AM
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> > On
> >> > >
> >> > 1/21/16 1:03
> PM,
> >> > >
> > Stephen
> >> > Thorpe
> >> > >
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> > It is worth
> >> > >
> > noting
> >> > that Michael
> Engel did
> >> > >
> preregister
> >> > his article
> (twice
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> actually!) on ZooBank:
> >> > >
> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> > 18 October 2015
> >> http://zoobank.org/References/A6A94078-42E5-48B8-
> >> > >
> > B602-49DA7D0523F6
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> [Record not
> >> > publicly
> viewable]
> >> > >
> > >
> >> > >
> 13
> >> > >
> >
> >> > November
> 2015 http://zoobank.org/References/ADFE8605-38F3-45C6-
> >> > >
> > B686-5094367C9695
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> > > It would
> >> therefore
> >> > >
> > appear to be the
> >> fault of the
> >> > journal
> (Cretaceous
> >> Research) editorial
> >> > >
> team > that no
> >> ZooBank registration
> >> > was
> indicated in the
> >> publication, and
> >> > >
> very > unfortunate
> >> in this case
> >> > since
> it the same taxon was
> >> apparently
> >> > >
> validly > described as
> >> new by
> >> > Pohl
> & Beutel shortly
> >> after!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> > It is not just
> >> > this one
> thing that
> >> > >
> causes the name
> >> > to be
> unavailable.
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> There are *three*
> >> > >
> >> > >
> requirements under
> >> > >
> the present
> >> > ICZN, and
> the Engel et al.
> >> online paper > failed to
> >> > comply with
> >> > > *two*
> of them, not
> >> just
> >> > one.
> Note the following
> >> > (from
> >> > >
> >> > > http://iczn.org/content/electronic-publication-made-available-
> >> > >
> amendment-
> >> > >
> >
> >> > code):
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> >> > > "
> The requirements for
> >> > >
> >> > >
> electronic publications are
> >> that the work be
> >> > registered
> in ZooBank before
> >> > >
> it >
> >> > is
> published, that the work
> >> itself state the date
> of
> >> > publication
> and
> >> > >
> contain > evidence
> >> > that
> registration has
> >> occurred, and that the
> ZooBank
> >> > >
> registration >
> >> state both the name
> >> > of an
> electronic archive
> >> intended to
> >> > >
> preserve the work > and
> >> the ISSN or
> >> > ISBN
> > >
> >> associated with the work."
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> > The
> >> > online
> version of this
> >> > >
> > work
> >> > fulfills the
> first of these
> >> > >
> >> > criteria,
> but neither of the
> >> latter two.
> >> > >
> >
> >> > >
> >
> >> > 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 >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > >
> > 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
> 29
> >> > >
> years of
> >> > >
> > Taxacom in
> >> 2016.
> >> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> > 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 29 years of
> Taxacom in 2016.
> >> --
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
> F.R.E.S.
> >> US Post Office Address:
> >> Montana Entomology Collection
> >> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> >> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> >> Montana State University
> >> Bozeman, MT 59717
> >> USA
> >> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> >> Montana Entomology Collection
> >> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> >> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> >> Montana State University
> >> Bozeman, MT 59718
> >> USA
> >> (406) 994-4610
> (voice)
> >> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> >> mivie at montana.edu
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 29 years of
> Taxacom in 2016.
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list