[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 18:33:45 CST 2016


Mike, Mike, Mike,

Let me be the first to fess up to talking about something I don't really understand, i.e. milking and selective breeding of cattle. I'm more than happy to defer to you on that one, though I only actually said that your statement (which was clearly intended to sound ridiculous) was perhaps no so far from the truth, that's all. But enough of that digression!

OK, so you are arguing that Zootaxa was made fully compliant with the Amendment after the fact, and every other publisher should do the same, or risk noncompliance issues infecting their output. Well, that is easy to postulate, but difficult to prove (or even support with any real evidence). Maybe this is precisely why COIs should always be avoided, precisely because it raises doubts which can never really be put to rest. If you were on trial Mike (innocent of course!), would you accept one of the jurors being related to the victim?

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> 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
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 1:23 PM
 
 Nah, it was not hypocrisy, it was
 intentional, just payback for your 
 actions.  And, no, you didn't already answer it, you
 had only addressed 
 a unidirectional model of conspiracy and COI.  That the
 direction of 
 influence was the other way had never been address, more
 smoke and 
 mirrors by you.
 
 I take it you have no real experience with milking machines,
 either.  
 Your statement would get you laughed out of a milking
 parlor.
 
 Mike
 
 On 1/24/2016 5:18 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > BTW, Mike, you accuse me of a "personal attack" against
 you (for merely pointing out that you asked something that I
 had already answered!), and then you accuse me of having a
 (your words) "conspiracy fetish"! There is a word beginning
 with H which describes you (and possibly words starting with
 other letters too!) There is no conspiracy, just a common or
 garden case of COI, plain for all the world to see.
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 > --------------------------------------------
 > On Mon, 25/1/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
 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
 >   Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016,
 1:06 PM
 >   
 >   Stephen,
 >   
 >   Again, you try to distract us with a
 personal attack,
 >   claiming I am not
 >   doing something "properly."  Do
 try to stick to the
 >   topic.
 >   Zootaxa dates to before the amendment
 but was not compliant
 >   with the
 >   amendment before the Amendment was
 proposed, so your straw
 >   man is just
 >   smoke and mirrors to cover your
 conspiracy fetish.
 >   Because Zootaxa was
 >   compliant with the Amendment after the
 amendment was
 >   adopted, but by the
 >   time it was in force, sensibly taking
 advantage of the long
 >   announced
 >   period between being advertized and
 going into force, is
 >   simply the
 >   actions of a good editor trying to
 work within the needs of
 >   Zoological
 >   Nomenclature and our community.
 >   
 >   Your argument is like saying cow
 udders were designed to
 >   optimized the
 >   profits of those who make milking
 machines.
 >   
 >   Mike
 >   
 >   
 >   On 1/24/2016 4:37 PM, Stephen Thorpe
 wrote:
 >   > If you had read my posts
 properly, Mike, you would
 >   already know the answer to that! Which
 came first? Zootaxa
 >   or Amendment?
 >   >
 >   > Stephen
 >   >
 >   >
 >   >
 --------------------------------------------
 >   > On Mon, 25/1/16, Michael A. Ivie
 <mivie at montana.edu>
 >   wrote:
 >   >
 >   >   Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Important note
 >   Re: two names online published - one
 new species
 >   >   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >   >   Received:
 Monday, 25 January, 2016,
 >   12:23 PM
 >   >
 >   >   Stephen,
 >   >
 >   >   Why is it not
 more likely, in the face
 >   of first person
 >   >   testimony from
 >   >   those present,
 that Zootaxa was
 >   optimized TO THE AMENDMENT,
 >   >   and not the
 >   >   other way
 around, which you cling to
 >   as a drowning man to a
 >   >   piece of
 >   >   styrofoam? 
 Seems to me that a
 >   publisher that looks at
 >   >   the amendment,
 >   >   and sets their
 journal to conform to
 >   it should be put up on
 >   >   a pedestal
 >   >   as an example to
 the world, not
 >   accused of nefarious insider
 >   >   trading.
 >   >
 >   >   Mike
 >   >
 >   >   On 1/24/2016
 2:26 PM, Stephen Thorpe
 >   wrote:
 >   >   > 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.
 >   >   >
 >   _______________________________________________
 >   >   > 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
 >   
 >
 > .
 >
 
 -- 
 __________________________________________________
 
 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