[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 16:21:21 CST 2016
Rich,
You are not being true to what I wrote. I have already stated that I have nothing deserving of the label "conspiracy theory". I am simply sticking to the facts of what is, when all said and done, a pretty obvious case of COI. The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a 100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative models; and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a significant input into the Amendment. So you are saying that is mere "coincidence", are you? What is your explanation? In the sense that I was meaning, EVERY commissioner had "inside knowledge" of the amendment (because they were the ones developing it, for God's sake!) This makes no difference EXCEPT if a commissioner is also a stakeholder in a relevant publishing company. Then they know in advance what to expect from the Amendment, can gain clarifications, and can lobby for changes which are in the interests of that publishing company (and possibly not in the interests of zoological nomenclature as a whole). Again, how did we end up in a situation whereby the Amendment is a 100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative models? Either answer me with a plausible explanation, or shut up accusing me of "conspiracy theories".
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:49 AM
Stephen,
I was in the room when the original outline for the
Amendment was drafted. So was Frank. So were most ICZN
Commissioners of the time. So were several other
non-Commissioners. You were not in the room.
Moreover, for nearly FOUR YEARS the public had access to the
draft Amendment before it was ratified. Many comments were
received, and the Amendment was modified in response to
those Comments. Throughout that entire Process,
Zhi-Qiang had precisely the same influence over the shaping
of the Amendment wording as every other Commissioner.
I was very actively involved with the discussions concerning
the drafting and re-drafting of the Amendment wording, both
in public forums and in private ICZN discussions.
Zhi-Qiang, like all Commissioners and like many
non-commissioners, provided valuable suggestions and
insights into the drafting and re-drafting of the Amendment.
At no time was there any discussion that in any way favored
one publishing model over another, especially not from
Zhi-Qiang. There was nothing in the Amendment related
to publishing models that was not openly available to the
general public for years prior to the final ratification.
Therefore, it is not possible that any Commissioner had any
sort of "inside knowledge" of what was going to result from
the Amendment, any more-so than any member of the public. As
Frank indicated, many other publishers were consulted
throughout the entire process.
As Frank suggested, I doubt you will ever change your
opinions about the validity of you conspiracy theories, no
matter how demonstrably wrong they are.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 11:27 AM
> To: Stephen Thorpe; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'Doug Yanega'; Frank T. Krell
> Cc: 'engel'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names
online published - one
> new species
>
> Other publishers were no doubt consulted to some
extent, yes. Neverthless,
> we have ended up in a situation whereby the electronic
amendment is
> optimised to the Zootaxa publishing model, and many
other publishers fall
> into a messy and indeterminate basket. Note that the
Zootaxa publishing
> model wasn't created so as to be fully Code compliant
with the electronic
> amendment. The Zootaxa model predates the amendment by
several years.
> At the very least, Zhang had inside knowledge of what
was going to result
> from the amendment well ahead of time, and thereby had
an advantage over
> other publishers.
>
> These are facts Frank. I cannot be wrong. Not unless
you can offer a
> convincing alternative explanation as to why the
electronic amendment fits
> Zootaxa hand in glove, while other publishers are left
in a gray zone. Well?
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
names online published -
> one new species
> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"'Doug
> Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
> Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:16 AM
>
> To you. But you are
> wrong. You won't be convinced otherwise, so it
is useless to repeat that
> other publishers were consulted etc.
> You believe what you want anyway.
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 2:11 PM
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'Doug
> Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>;
Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
two names online published -
> one new species
>
> Frank,
>
> Zootaxa
> is very relevant to this whole thread and
wider discussion.
>
> Fact (1): there
> are significant problems with the electronic
amendment (no, the sky isn't
> falling down, people aren't running for the hills
in droves, etc., but in the
> context of zoological nomenclature there are
significant problems), none of
> which affect the Zootaxa publishing model.
>
> Fact (2): the owner of Zootaxa
> is a prominent member of the ICZN who had a
significant part to play in the
> development of the electronic amendment.
>
> Now, you can claim, if you
> really want to, that facts (1) and (2) are
independent, coincidence, or
> whatever, but to me it looks like a classic case
of a COI. The best interests of
> zoological nomenclature as a whole are not
necessarily the best interests of
> Zootaxa in particular. You make yourself look
foolish if you refuse to
> acknowledge the problem here. You might claim that
the COI is outweighed
> by other more important factors (like, maybe,
keeping the ICZN viable and
> running), but it is really self-evident that the
electronic amendment was
> optimised for the Zootaxa publishing model and to hell
with any other
> alternative. There is no room for doubt regarding
the Code compliance of
> Zootaxa articles, but articles from many other
publishers are very much in
> the "how liberal do you feel" bucket, and it
isn't going to be long before
> taxonomists start renaming taxa already named by
others in these dubiously
> valid publications (just like Scott Thomson
renames taxa from Australasian
> Journal of Herpetology). All this is not good! It
isn't a corrupt conspiracy, or
> anything of the sort. It is just not good for
zoological nomenclature, not
> good for taxonomy, and not good for science.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> wrote:
>
> Subject: RE:
> [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
published - one new
> species
> To: "Stephen
> Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
> Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016,
9:40 AM
>
> As expected.
> Still being pragmatic.
> And
> Zootaxa again, out of context, but in
your mind all the time.
>
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe
> [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24,
> 2016 1:37 PM
> To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
> 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>;
Frank
> T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note
Re:
> two names online published - one new
species
>
> Frank,
>
> That is
> a pretty darn liberal
> reinterpretation of:
>
>
> 8.5.3.1. The entry in the
> Official Register
> of Zoological Nomenclature must give the
name and Internet address of an
> organization other than the publisher that
is intended to permanently
> archive the work in a manner that preserves
the content and layout, and
> is capable of doing so. This information is
not required to appear in the
> work itself.
>
> If we
> allow such dizzying levels of liberality,
then it is pretty much "anything
> goes"! Besides, publishing with a publisher
that still prints hard
> copies effectively IS archiving, but the
Code is clearly not concerned with
> "effectively", and it just opens up a huge
scope for everyone to disagree on
> the interpretation of the Code, thereby
causing instability and
> nomenclatural chaos (none of which affects
Zootaxa...)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: RE:
> [Taxacom] Important note Re:
> two names online published - one
new species
> To: "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
> "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
> Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016,
9:31 AM
>
> I would see the
> criteria
> for availability more liberally.
> Publishing with a publisher that
archives all its publications anyway is an
> intention to archive.
> Being
> pragmatic.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> Dr Frank
> T. Krell
> Curator of
> Entomology
> Commissioner, International
> Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN
> ZooBank Committee Department of
Zoology Denver Museum of Nature
> & Science
> 2001 Colorado
> Boulevard
> Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
>
> Phone: (+1) (303)
> 370-8244
> Fax: (+1) (303)
> 331-6492
> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>
> Test your powers of
> observation in The International
Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes, open until
> January 31. And prepare your palate for
> Chocolate: The
> Exhibition,
> opening February 12.
>
> The
>
> Denver Museum of Nature
> & Science
> salutes the citizens of metro Denver
for helping fund arts, culture and
> science through their support of the
Scientific and Cultural Facilities District
> (SCFD).
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
>
>
> Sent: Sunday,
> January
> 24, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: 'Stephen
> Thorpe'
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> 'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
> two names online published - one
new
> species
>
> I can confirm
> that the
> Archive was added to this
record
> at 2016-01-23
> 12:21:46.330 UTC, by the
> same login account that created the
original registration. Following the
> principle that the work becomes available
when all requirements
> are fulfilled (see my previous email
reply to Laurent on this list), and
> assuming all other requirements for
publication are met, my
> interpretation would be that the date of
publication for purposes of priority
> should be 23 January 2016. If numerous
copies of the paper edition
> were simultaneously obtainable prior to
this date, and if the paper edition
> is in compliance with the Code for
published works printed on paper, then
> the date of publication for purposes
of priority should be interpreted as the
> date on which numerous copies of the
printed edition were simultaneously
> obtainable (see Art.
>
> 21.9).
>
> What is, or is
> not
> visible through the
> ZooBank website is irrelevant. The
Code makes reference to content in
> the Official Register of Zoological
Nomenclature, only a subset of which is
> visible on the website itself.
Future versions of the ZooBank website
> (pending development
> support) will include
> more robust and publicly visible
documentation of when specific items
> were added or amended.
>
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016
9:25 AM > To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
Doug Yanega > Cc:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
engel > Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> Important note Re:
> two names online published -
> one new species > >
Doug, > > I'm
> not sure that this was at all
helpful! The addition of the archive >
info isn't
> date stamped (at least not for public
view). Now the record > misleadingly
> looks like valid online first
publication on 4 January
> 2016:
> >
> http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
> >
> > As far as I
> know,
> the print edition may
> not be
> published yet (all we > know
is
> that it is the January
> 2016 print issue,
> which could be > published in
February for all we know). So there may be
> no way to > determine the true
date of availability for the new names.
>
> Even if we > can get a definitive
date on the hard copy, this doesn't
> help much, unless it is on or before 4
January 2016.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Sun, 24/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Subject:
> [Taxacom] Important note
>
> Re: two names online published -
>
> > one new species
>
> >
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> "engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
> > Received: Sunday, 24 January,
> 2016,
> 7:34 PM >
> I sent a
> note to the authors of the >
Kinzelbachilla paper
> (who had not > been CCed
before as Mike Engel had),
> and they said they have fixed
> the ZooBank record
> so it now includes the archive.
Accordingly, for
> > the public record, if we follow
the guideline as
> Rich suggested, all >
of the criteria for
> availability have now been fulfilled
for the name in
> their work.
> >
>
> > Most interesting of all, however,
if that they
> disagree regarding > these
two papers describing
> the same taxon, despite both being
from >
> essentially the same type of amber
deposit:
> >
> >
>
> "By the way, it is not
> the same thing, the eyes, for instance,
are >
> strikingly different."
> >
> > In other words,
> this
> may not be a matter of competing for
priority, >
> after all, as Hans had originally
supposed.
> >
>
>
> >
> Peace,
> >
> > --
> > 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list