[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 22 17:50:36 CDT 2016
Hi Laurent,
Yes, it has been quite difficult to get the details straight about this issue (due in part to rather vague and hasty accusations being thrown around, not to mention the issue being spuriously linked by Jason with the Marshall/Evenhuis bee fly!), and I'm not so sure that the people or institutions directly involved will want to talk about it at all. Preliminary indications suggest to me that the journal itself must be considered to be extremely "dodgy", what with Pushkin on the editorial board and also Gautam, who appears to be unreachable at his institution in USA. From what I can tell, Pushkin is the only one publishing taxonomic articles, so the relevance of this issue to us is fortunately probably limited to just a few bogus taxonomic papers. It does appear that Hava et al. and Pushkin initially had a cooperative relationship, but things seem to have devolved from there. I'll let you know if any new information comes to hand on this issue..
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 23/9/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 23 September, 2016, 10:28 AM
Yes, I got caught in a
confusion between the two papers as well. (As you
did initially too, Stephen, but for some reason
that I don't understand,
your emails to
the group stopped to reach me some time ago; I can only
see them in the archive.) So to be clear:
- The first paper (Anthrenus kamiluhi,
http://easletters.com/volume3-issue1-2016/EASL-2016-3-1-1-3.pdf
,
claimed to be a "nomen
nudum" by Háva, Herrmann & Kadej) is registered
in ZooBank (and is thus presumably
published).
- The second one (Thamaglossa
zhantievi,
http://easletters.com/volume3-issue4-2016/EASL-2016-3-4-12-14.pdf
) is
not (and is IMHO unpublished).
The ISSN claimed on ZooBank
(2348-2864) is that of the online version.
Here: http://easletters.com/malpractice-policy.html
the journal is said
to be "an
*electronic* peer reviewed international journal".
ELibrary.ru
- http://elibrary.ru/title_about.asp?id=56427
- makes 2348-2864 the ISSN
of the
online (онлайновой) version, and gives no ISSN of
any printed
(печатной) version.
SV Pushkin appears on the
website of his university -
http://www.ncfu.ru/spisok-sotrudnikov/1302-pushkin-sergey-viktorovich.html
- so the affiliation presumably did
exist at some point at least.
Whether the
university will answer an outsider about this type of issue,
is probably a different matter, though.
(But I doubt that a Russian
zoologist can get this type of publicity:
https://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/puspdf18.htm
...on the website of the Zoological Institute
of the Russian Academy of
Science at
St-Petersburg, and keep things quiet indefinitely...)
Laurent -
On 09/22/2016 11:32 PM,
Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> I note that
someone using the name "Sergey Viktorovich
Pushkin" has
been active on ZooBank (
http://zoobank.org/Search?search_term=Pushkin
), trying to register articles. Also, it
appears that Hava et al.
described Anthrenus
pushkini Herrmann, Kadej & Háva, 2015!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297838486_A_new_species_of_Anthrenus_Geoffroy_1762_Coleoptera_Dermestidae_from_Dagestan
> Evidently they were
collaborating at some stage. I have as yet had
> no
reply from either Hava,
nor the Russian university that Pushkin claims
affiliation with. The ZooBank record for the
journal (
http://zoobank.org/References/7C956948-1236-45B4-A62B-414B69567BDE
)
claims to have a print ISSN, so I
wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it as
e-only! It would be very easy for them to
produce a minimal print run
anyway, or to
fake it in a way that is difficult to disprove. The
journal appears to be based in India and
appears somewhat "dodgy"! One
of
the editorial board is listed as being USA based: Dr Bal K
Gautam,
Department of Entomology, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA ,
USA. I
might check him out ...
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 22/9/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016,
9:59 PM
>
> A
"collection"
> where the
type(s) are intended to be deposited must be
> designated and its location given *IF*
the
> types are extant specimens.
> (The whole
>
purpose of this provision being to make it as easy as
> possible for a subsequent worker to
re-locate
> the type series -- and
put
> an end to
>
situations where this subsequent author had to use
"any
>
>
evidence, published or unpublished,"
> to guess where he might find the
> types.)
>
> But anyway, the first problem
> here doesn't seem to be the
depository.
> The first problem is that
the journal is
> electronic, and the
paper lacks
> a ZooBank
> registration, thus it is wholly
unpublished and *nothing* in
>
> it is nomenclaturally relevant.
>
> The description is
fake as
> well, by the way, not just
the images -- 99%
> of the text being
an evident 'remix' of
> the
description of Thaumaglossa
>
mroczkowskii by Háva & Kadej 2005.
>
> As michael noted,
it seems
> impossible to understand
such a behaviour if
> it comes from a
professional scientist, as it
> can
only be damaging for
> him. But do
we
> necessarily need to accept that it
really happened..? One
>
> possible purpose for such a
'paper'
> may be to create a
fake publication
> track
> for a 'predatory' journal, in
order to attract
> submissions.
>
> Laurent -
>
>
> On 09/22/2016 10:23 AM,
> Derek Sikes wrote:
> > Neal,
>
>
> > "The names are
> nomina nuda because the author failed to
designate a type
> > depository for
each — a common
> > mistake
unfortunately."
> >
> > Could you clarify
> this further? If a depository
designation is needed to
> > avoid
names becoming nomina nuda, then how
>
is it possible to name a species
> >
based
> only on a photo? (As it seems
it is). If the type is running
>
around
> > free, it can't have
a
> depository. I'd appreciate
knowing where in the code
> > this
is spelled out. Thanks! (I'm
>
teaching systematics now and we've
> >
> covered
these descriptions based on photographed but
> uncollected types...)
> >
> >
-Derek
> >
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Neal
> Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Actually …
> >>
> >>
This has
> nothing to do with
publishing based on a photograph only.
> A
> >>
holotype is clearly listed as
>
examined. The names are nomina nuda because
> >> the author failed to designate
a type
> depository for each — a
common
> >>
> mistake unfortunately.
> >>
> >>
What is troublesome in the paper that
>
you refer to that points out that
>
>>
> these are nomina nuda, is
the conclusion for each name says
> the
opposite!
> >> That they are
> “available”.
>
>>
> >> Simply, sloppy
descriptions and sloppy
> review of the
sloppy descriptions.
> >>
> >> -Neal
>
>>
> >>
> >>
>
>>
> >> On Stardate
9/21/16, 5:40 PM,
> "Taxacom on
behalf of JF Mate"
> >>
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> on behalf of aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
>>
> >>> 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_a
> >>>
>
nd_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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
This message is only intended for the
>
addressee named above. Its contents
>
>> may be privileged or otherwise
> protected. Any unauthorized use,
disclosure
> >> or copying of
this message or its
> contents is
prohibited. If you have
> >>
received this message by mistake,
>
please notify us immediately by reply
>
>> mail or by collect telephone call.
> Any personal opinions expressed in
this
> >> message do not
necessarily represent
> the views of
the Bishop Museum.
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
> >> 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