[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 22 00:08:33 CDT 2016
OK Jason, it is beginning to look like Pushkin is stealing illustrations and publishing them as his own (God only knows why?) However, there is something not quite right in what Hava et al. are claiming (or the way that they are claiming it, mixing pedantic trivia with serious accusations). Pure speculation, but it looks to me like Hava et al. might have been blocking Pushkin from access to material of Dermestidae, which may have angered Pushkin to the point of some twisted attempt at revenge. Who knows? Very ugly, but really nothing at all to do with the way that you introduced this thread. Whether deliberately or not, you basically dragged Marshall and Evenhuis into the same basket as Pushkin, and that was very wrong of you. Marshall and Evenhuis' recent description of a bee fly from a photo has absolutely no relevance to an ugly war over dermestids involving copyright infringements and falsification of taxonomic information!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 4:52 PM
Hi Stephen,
"Holotype" picture
of T. zhantievi is actually T. laeta pinched from
this website: http://www.dermestidae.com/Thaumaglossalaeta.html
Genitalia of
"Holotype" T. zhantievi is actually genitalia from
T.
mroczkowski from the article by Hava
& Kadej (2005: Description of a
new
species of Thaumaglossa REDTENBACHER), fig 7.
I agree that
the Hava et al 2016 article is somewhat confused and but
I stand by the digital pinching by Pushkin,
which was the original
intention in me
highlighting this article.
Best
Jason
On 22 September 2016 at 14:38,
Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Jason said "Because the
author pinched the pictures from former colaborators who had
previously described a real new species in another article
10 years before, photosopped them and published it as a
different species".
>
> Sorry Jason, but you are making that up!
Where's the evidence. Besides, the "real
species" to which you refer is Thaumaglossa laeta
Arrow, 1915. I think you need to consult a calculator if you
think 1915 is "10 years before"!
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
> To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016,
4:30 PM
>
> Relax
Stephen,
>
>
"Just to be clear,
> descriptions
*never* required "dead bodies".
> This
> is nothing
new."
> I
>
know, I am recycling somebody elses title. Take it up
with
> them.
>
> "Also, it is not
> a nomen nudum. A nomen nudum is a name
published
> without a
description/diagnosis or
>
illustration. I assume you mean
> that
it
> fails to be an available name for
some reason (I can think
> of
> two candidate reasons in this
> case)." That is not why I brought
it up.
>
>
"Most importantly, I am
> at a
total and complete loss as to why you
>
think this paper has any relevance to
>
"without dead bodies". The
>
description includes details and illustrations
> of the internal
>
genitalia, etc.! Why in the
> name of
heck do you refer to this case as
>
a
> "dirty deed"?? I think
that it must be you who are
> confused
... "
> Because the author
> pinched the pictures from former
colaborators who
> had previously
described a real new species in
>
another article 10
> years before,
photosopped
> them and published it as
a different
> species. I think that is
interesting and
> somehow it has
bearing,
> however
> tangentially, to the rise of digital
only descriptions.
>
> Best
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 13:56,
Stephen
> Thorpe
>
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> > Just
to be clear, descriptions
> *never*
required "dead bodies". This is nothing
> new. Also, it is not a nomen nudum. A
nomen nudum is a name
> published
without a description/diagnosis or illustration. I
> assume you mean that it fails to be an
available name for
> some reason (I can
think of two candidate reasons in this
> case). However, it will probably be
treated as an available
> name, as it
only fails on a technicality, and so do a great
> many names in big journals, so the Code
will probably have
> to "loosen
up" at some stage. Most importantly, I
> am at a total and complete loss as to
why you think this
> paper has any
relevance to "without dead bodies".
> The description includes details and
illustrations of the
> internal
genitalia, etc.! Why in the name of heck do you
> refer to this case as a "dirty
deed"?? I think
> that it must be
you who are confused ...
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
> >
>
--------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject:
>
[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
>
>
> To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Received: Thursday, 22 September,
2016,
> 3:40 PM
>
>
> > It seems
> taxonomy fraudsters have
> > cottoned on
> the fact that
>
> descriptions no longer
> require
"dead bodies". A description
> > of a new
>
>
> Dermestidae was published in
Entomology and Applied
> Science
> > Letters.
>
> Fortunately the author was pretty lazy
> and it ended up being
> > a nomen
>
> nudum. Reference to original article and
> link to article
>
> uncovering
> > the dirty
deed below.
> >
> > Jason
>
>
> > Original article:
> Description of a new species of the
genus
> > Thaumaglossa
(COLEOPTERA: Dermestidae:
>
Megatominae) of the
> >
Astrakhan
> > Region of Russia.
> >
> Entomology
and Applied Science Letters, 2016, 3, 4:
> 12-14.
> >
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308163532_New_Faunistic_Records_and_remarks_on_Dermestidae_Coleoptera_-_Part_15
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
Injecting
> Intellectual Liquidity for
29 years.
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Injecting
Intellectual
> Liquidity for 29
years.
>
_______________________________________________
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
Injecting Intellectual
Liquidity for 29 years.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list