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

Sun Jan 24 18:41:01 CST 2016

Well, for the benefit of anybody who does read my reply: Frank evidently thinks that it OK to counter accusations with, well, counter-accusations! I'm not sure that such a strategy is particularly helpful or contructive! How about tackling the actual issue, rather than just making counter-accusations?

>You are accusing the Commission to draft the Amendment in a way that it gives an advantage to the business of one of its members<

Yes, I guess that I am. However, these things can and do happen. It is called "conflict of interest" (COI). It is not a far fetched "alien abduction conspiracy theory"! Just as a member of a jury should not be related to the victim (or to the accused), a member of the ICZN should not be a publisher of ICZN regulated matter. It is really very straightforward, commonsense stuff. Why are you not seeing that?

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>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 1:27 PM

 Stephen,
 You are accusing the Commission to draft the
 Amendment in a way that it gives an advantage to the
 business of one of its members.
 That's
 why we are accusing you to comfort yourself in your
 conspiracy theory. Your theory is neither close to reality
 nor is it helpful. The ICZN is not that cheap. Yes, seeing
 causalities everywhere where there are none is tempting and
 widespread in human culture, but it very often not true.
 And, no, Stephen, you won't have the last
 word here because I am leaving this discussion now and will
 not see your reply :-)
 Back to work

 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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 4:36 PM
 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>;
 deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
 names online published - one new species

 Nice try Rich!

 >I am saying your premises (what you refer
 to as "facts") are flawed, 
 >and hence there is neither coincidence nor
 conspiracy<

 No that is
 not what you have been saying. You have been publicly
 accusing me of "conspiracy theories" (your words),
 not flawed premises. Now you are just back peddling a
 little.

 >and/or
 recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners
 that 
 >were ignored?<

 Again putting words into my
 mouth. I made absolutely no suggestion that any
 recommendations were ignored. I have no idea if any were
 ignored or not. What I do know is that the answers one gets
 to questions depends on what questions are asked, how they
 are asked, how well they are explained, and how well the
 issue is advertised (I recall, for example, a security
 manager who said something like "legally, we have to
 identify security cameras with a sign, but there is nothing
 to say that sign has to be big!")

 >Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the
 Amendment is a "100% fit with 
 >the
 Zootaxa publishing model"and b) how it "fails for
 many alternative 
 >models"?<

 Sure. The Amendment has
 created a situation whereby effectively "the Zootaxa
 way is the best way, and everybody else should follow or
 else risk non-compliance with the Code". The main issue
 concerns online first publication of articles before final
 pagination and assignment to a volume/issue. This became
 such a big problem that the "metadata solution"
 was quickly drafted as a "band aid", but it is far
 from ideal. Not all publishers have the resources to do
 things the Zootaxa way, and why should they have to? Zootaxa
 apparently still publishes online and print editions (more
 or less) simultaneously, so the whole online aspect, as
 someone today already noted on Taxacom, is kind of redundant
 anyway for Zootaxa. It appears to be there just in case the
 journal needs to go e-only for some reason (this may
 increase profit margins by reducing overheads, though,
 alternatively, hard copy subscriptions might be a good way
 for researchers to strategically ditch funding, but that
 doesn't matter for present purposes). So, in summary:
 basically, the date written on a Zootaxa PDF can be
 confidently taken to be the date of valid publication,
 without any complications.

 >> and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a
 significant input into the 
 >>
 Amendment.<<
 >Really?  How
 so?<
 By being part of the decision making
 process. It is a pretty good analogy with something like
 this: if you were on trial, would you accept even just one
 of the 12 jurors being related to the victim? As I said, the
 case for a COI here is pretty clear. I'm surprised that
 you are claiming otherwise.

 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, 12:02
 PM

  Sorry, Stephen, but
 this is
  nonsense.

  > The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a
 100% fit with  the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for
 many alternative  models; 

  Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the
 Amendment is a  "100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing
 model", and b) how it  "fails for many
 alternative models"?  Since you assert  this as a
 "fact", I would expect your elaborations to be 
 devoid of opinion.

  >
 and (2) the owner of Zootaxa
  > had a
 significant input into the Amendment. 

  Really?  How so?  The only role that all 
 Commissioners played that was not open to full public
 access  was the decision on how to craft the final draft of
 the  ratified Amendment that was voted on.  Could you
 please  explain where the changes between the originally
 published  draft and the final published version of the
 Amendment  differed in a way that favored the Zootaxa
 publishing model  to the detriment of other publishing
 models, and/or  recommendations from other publishers or
 non-Commissioners  that were ignored?

  > So you are saying that is mere
 "coincidence", are you?

  No, I am saying your
 premises (what you refer to as "facts")  are
 flawed, and hence there is neither coincidence nor 
 conspiracy.

  Aloha,
  Rich