[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 19:04:21 CST 2016
Mike,
Actually, I suspect that I have better tertiary qualifications in logic than you do, not that it necessarily means much, but nevertheless probably in fact accurately enough indicates the difference between us in this regard.
>The idea you propose that thousands of years of human induced selection could be guided by the eventual need for fitting teats to an as yet unimaginable milking machine<
That wasn't the idea that I proposed! I said hundreds of years of selective breeding to optimise milk production. I didn't mention milking machines! How could you have misread what I wrote so badly?
Your "eye witness" argument also sinks like a stone. The testimony of "eye witnesses" who are close colleagues of "the accused" (working together for a common goal) doesn't actually count for much, I think you will find! On the contrary, I do have evidence (evidence not being quite the same thing as proof, of course). My evidence is that the one publishing model which is immune to any problems whatsoever resulting from the Amendment is the Zootaxa model. That is in itself evidence, not proof but evidence, of the COI, which the other commissioners might not even have considered or noticed, for all I know, but the end result is the same.
We now have a situation whereby, for many journals, the (date of) availability for new taxon names is indeterminate. But for Zootaxa it is all quite clear and unproblematic. How did this situation arise?
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, 1:49 PM
Stephen,
The idea you propose that thousands of years of human
induced selection
could be guided by the eventual need for fitting teats to an
as yet
unimaginable milking machine illustrates perhaps the best
understanding
of your way of thinking we have ever seen. You are a
determinalist,
clearly, and think evolution proceeds to a needed end.
This also
explains your need to see this Amendment/Zootaxa situation
the way you
do. Not sure if this is a lack of logic training in
your education or
just something inherent, but it is instructive in
understanding your
argument.
In fact, using your court analogy, we have several eye
witnesses to the
situation, and they all disagree with your assertions.
You were not
there, they were. For you to be right, they must all
have conspired to
let this nefarious action occur and cover it up for the
benefit of the
evil doer, in effect as a group, aiding a abetting insider
advantage,
which is a conspiracy. Since you have no proof, the
best you can go for
is a theory. Ipso facto, you are pushing a conspiracy
theory, Rich is
vindicated!
All evidence is contrary to your conspiracy theory, as eye
witness
testimony is evidence, and nothing you have is.
Mike
On 1/24/2016 5:33 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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
>
>
> .
>
--
__________________________________________________
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