[Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR

Tue Jul 7 09:50:23 CDT 2020

Impact factors are imperfect scientometric values. Perhaps a reliable
evaluation method should definitely rely on other values than solely IF.
The reason why ZooTaxa - and many other journals got suspended from the IF
listing is the high amount of self-citations (43% in case of ZooTaxa).
Here's the list:
https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Title-Suppress-2.pdf

It is certainly possible to list ZooTaxa again in JCR. I don't think that
the self-citations in this case are the result of a cartel activity. They
rather arise from the fact that papers published there are often very long
monographs (>100 pp) that are assessing very specific topics. ZooTaxa
is responsible for over 25% of new taxon descriptions and nomenclatural
acts in Zoology. Thus it is inevitable to cite these papers in a taxonomic
revision/monograph. I wonder what's the case with PhytoTaxa and PhytoKeys?
They were not listed in the list but they have the same purpose and publish
similar types of long botanical monographs.

Clarivate the company behind the impact factor indexes 21,000 journals, but
only 12,000 are included in the annual Journal Citation Report (JCR) and
receive Impact Factors. There are currently two reasons for suppression
from the JCR: journal self-citation and “citation-stacking,” behavior which
is sometimes referred to as taking part in “citation cartels” or “citation
rings.” None of the suppressions or expressions of concern this year were
for citation stacking. When the company suppresses a journal from the JCR,
it continues to count its citations, but does not assign it an Impact
Factor. Clarivate recently changed their citation evaluation and tracking
system. They also modified the way how self-citations are calculated. This
could be the very reason why ZooTaxa got suppressed this year, which might
be an artifact.

For example if the journal's editorial board with the taxonomic community
would investigate why the suspension has happened and clear up the issue
with about the high amount of self-citations to Clarivate it could be back
to IF indexing any time. This might be a precedental case for the company
to fine tune their evaluation system.

Cheers,
Péter

Donat Agosti via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> ezt írta (időpont:
2020. júl. 7., K, 11:02):

> We might want to look beyond Zootaxa and what is happening around taxonomy
> in regards of publishing and assessing science.
>
> Science is moving rapidly into open science whereby metrics beyond the
> journal impact factors are being measured and used not least in hiring
> scientists. One of the most important developments has been the DORA
> declaration on research assessment https://sfdora.org/ that recognizes
> the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are
> evaluated. It has been signed by  many of the leading research institutions
> and funding agencies, and many institutions now would not allow the
> citation indices as criteria to evaluate candidates.
>
> What does this mean for a journal? A journal is more than a pdf that can
> be cited. It is part of a contribution to building up our knowledge by
> citing other research. Taxonomy is one of the best fields to illustrate
> this. The function of a taxonomic publication is to contribute to chart the
> world's biodiversity by describing new species (taxa) or augmenting the
> knowledge of existing ones by citing the respective taxonomic treatments,
> NOT the article per se that functions as a container for this information.
> The treatment itself cites other taxa, other treatments, figures,
> specimens, collectors, gene sequences. In a PDF this is part of a prose
> that requires a lot of knowledge by the reader to decipher. In todays
> world, an article can be published including all these links explicitly, so
> that either the machine can read and operate on it, or the links can be
> embedded in the PDF or html page which allows to calculate how often this
> data is cited.
> That means that a journal should make its data citable by tagging the data
> and assigning persistent identifiers to the treatments, figures, or even
> the materials citation and specimens cited, gene sequences. It should add
> all the persistent identifiers to whenever something is cited, such as a
> previous treatment.
> Only this way, we can talk to our funders and institutions with statistics
> on hour hands that are what the DORA declaration asks for.
>
> In this context, we should look into the future rather than try to restore
> the past.
>
> Luckily for taxonomy, this is not the future, but we have this in place,
> just need to adopt this more widely, and the data this way accessible is
> immediately used, and widely accessible. Already the data from over 30,000
> publications is accessible on GBIF (that means GBIF is re-using the data
> from within publications:
> https://www.gbif.org/dataset/search?publishing_org=7ce8aef0-9e92-11dc-8738-b8a03c50a862
> because the data has been published in a format that it can be reused by
> machine (such as all the journals published by Pensoft) or they have been
> liberated and made citable via the Biodiversity Literature Repository (
> https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit/search?page=1&size=20) where
> also basic statistics for each data set is provided.
>
> If we would assign for each figure or treatment a Digital Object
> Identifier (DOI), there are tools around to calculate statistics that we
> can promote. We could expand to include more identifiers, such as ORCID for
> persons, methods used, specimens or gene sequences. This would also
> facilitate to not only known how often a specimen has been cited, but also
> the facts published about the specimen or gene sequence.
>
> It is probably also worthwhile to have a bit a wider view. It is clear
> that running and publishing a journal is not free, and because publishing
> becomes increasingly technically complex (not to publish a dump PDF per
> se), somebody has to pay for it. Clearly the subscription model is running
> out, with all the funding agencies requiring open access publishing - which
> makes it impossible for many of us to publish in closed access
> publications. The subscription model allows only a small fraction of us to
> read what we write, because the articles are behind a paywall. This has
> been changed because of Sci-hub more recently, but this is not a
> sustainable solution, although it is helpful and shows what the scientists
> want, free access. But arguing, that this is the model that allows
> everybody to publish is flawed, because it requires to circumvent paying
> for publishing.
>
> The impact of the current system is that we have no understanding what we
> publish and thus a detrimental effect on the conservation of biodiversity.
> This we cannot afford anymore. Each of the discoveries has to be
> immediately accessible, part of the rapidly growing science knowledge
> based, in the biodiversity domain through GBIF or NCBI. We can't provide
> closed access to this valuable data, whilst citizen scientists just added a
> billion observation to GBIF which mutes our scientific contribution. We
> rather must assure, that for each taxonomic name used in GBIF, we can
> provide all the published data (not a citation of a publication) to
> understand what we know about this observation, wether it is in fact the
> identified taxon.
>
> Finally, many of our institutions signed the Bouchout Declaration of open
> biodiversity knowledge management. As much as we talk to Clarivate, or
> probably much more, we need to talk to our institutions to remind them, to
> explain that science also needs an investment in a publishing
> infrastructure that allows immediate open access. And since we publish
> based on a lot of sample from the South, collected by citizen scientists,
> we need to find way to allow them in return to publish and with that
> contribute to science also in the format of publications.
>
> Donat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Richard
> Pyle via Taxacom
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:17 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
>
> EXTERNAL SENDER
>
>
> As far as I can discern, EVERYONE who has commented on this issue is very
> much on the same page on this issue philosophically, so we're all preaching
> to the choir on that.  The interesting part of the discussion is the
> question on how we, as a community of taxonomists, should respond.  There
> are several options:
>
> 1) Use this as a teachable moment to push back hard against the entire
> system of impact factors and related metrics for all of science.
> 2) Use this as a teachable moment to explain why taxonomy, as a field, is
> disproportionately misrepresented by such metrics, and perhaps develop
> alternative metrics that more accurately reflect our discipline.
> 3) Take proactive steps to solve the immediate problem and get Zootaxa
> back on the list.
> 4) Whine and rant about it incessantly on Taxacom, then move on to the
> next controversy du jour, and the one after, and so on, until a couple
> years from now this one comes back on the table and we all repeat the same
> arguments again.
>
> Of course, these are not mutually exclusive options.  I'm uneasy pursuing
> #1, because for all I know, practitioners in many other branches of science
> are perfectly happy with the system as it is.  I wouldn't presume to speak
> on their behalf. Number 2 seems the most reasonable approach for a
> long-term solution, and I've already floated some suggestions on that.  I
> normally wouldn't have considered the third option worth fussing about
> (i.e., in line with Carlos' thinking).  However, I have been reminded that
> this is a very real problem for real taxonomists at real institutions who
> are trying to get hired or achieve tenure or some other sort of promotion.
> For example, I learned from a fellow ICZN Commissioner that Taiwan's
> Ministry of Education policy requires that national universities (including
> Academia Sinica), only recognize journals with impact factors as can be
> counted for staff performance reviews. And apparently it's even worse in
> Hong Kong.  Others in Europe and the U.S., and elsewhere have enlightened
> me to similar effect.  This forces me to acknowledge that I (and presumably
> Carlos as well) have the luxury of working for an institution where such
> metrics don't matter for hiring and promotion and such. It's probably not
> in our best interests to allow our taxonomic colleagues who don't share
> this luxury to suffer in the context of unenlightened institutions, as this
> would accelerate the already speedy attenuation of taxonomy as a field (a
> falling tide lowers all boats).
>
> Of course, we already know that #4 is a given (should probably be added to
> other laws of the universe).  But the question is, where among the other
> three should we concentrate our efforts?  The post from Les Watling just
> now, in combination with information I received off-list from another ICZN
> Commissioner, gives some hope that #3 is already on track and will probably
> get sorted.  So.... should we continue to explore option #2?  Or just ride
> with #4?
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> P.S. I thought I sent this a couple hours ago, but just now found it in my
> drafts.  It seems Mike made essentially the same points.
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Database Coordinator Bernice Pauahi Bishop
> Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the
> exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Carlos
> > Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom
> > Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 6:00 AM
> > To: Alfredo Vizzini <alfredo.vizzini at unito.it>
> > Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> >
> > Dear Michael,
> > "...this issue has nothing to do with science or logic, it is purely
> > the politics of academic advancement of scientists’ careers." I
> wholeheartedly agree.
> > "We have to support that...". Definitely not.
> >
> > Before I continue, I will briefly outline the logical fallacy behind the
> IF.
> > Please read: "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAffirming_the_consequent&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=8XbNxND3%2Bp9G%2BTliypxb0VyZyCyhFEoFbwWoTVZA42A%3D&reserved=0
> )"
> >
> > Summarized:
> > True conditional statement:
> > • If P then Q
> > Invalidly concluding its converse:
> > • Q
> > • Therefore P
> >
> > Tailored to the JIF:
> > True conditional statement:
> > • If it has high quality (P) then it has high repercussion (Q)
> > Invalidly concluding its converse:
> > • It has high repercussion (Q)
> > • Therefore it has high quality (P)
> >
> > Building up a scientific career on a logical fallacy may not seem a
> > paradox to many but it is to me. One can be a scientist or not, one
> > has to choose to be coherent or not. I do not see anything in between.
> > This JIF issue is inherently incoherent and if I cannot have an
> > academic career because I do not bow down to such incoherence, then so
> > be it. Personally, I will look down to anyone trying to evaluate my
> > research based on the JIF of the journals I have published in. I would
> > expect that those persons do not call themselves scientists, because
> they would not be acting like scientists.
> > Moreover, like many colleagues here, I am tired of this derogatory
> > metric, to which authors' work doesn't matter, reviewers' work doesn't
> > matter, just journal names matter. I cannot understand how the same
> > scientists that think they can convince Clarivate Analytics to give
> > back the JIF to Zootaxa also think that they cannot elaborate why this
> > metric should not be used and convince their own institutions. Or
> > maybe I can. It may well be that many "scientists" are willing to profit
> from the JIF for the "academic advancement of scientists’
> > careers", regardless of the JIF being a fallacy.
> > I hope that they can look at the mirror and see themselves for what
> > they truly are.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Carlos
> >
> > Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> > FI-20014 University of Turku
> > Finland
> > Myriatrix
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyri
> > atrix.myspecies.info%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694
> > dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7
> > C637296670133047350&sdata=Lkoujx6OQ%2FEKzWBTO8I0vTIAFvZd2Hp1mmxuFC
> > 4nEDA%3D&reserved=0>
> > ResearchGate profile
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
> > .researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=02%7C01%7
> > Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b949
> > 6883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=FQn%2BEdObYP
> > Ul0kjsjT6Dsi9CxwK%2FRqxoCQRUbNZTtXM%3D&reserved=0>
> > Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
> > .facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%
> > 40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb3
> > 4586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=NbGfGVRkK0d1hYsY7Xdh
> > 9ostvWnfkXy1YI6uzuCDwsA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 6 jul. 2020 a las 16:45, Alfredo Vizzini
> > (<alfredo.vizzini at unito.it>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > ... but we must not resign ourselves and fight against this stupid
> > > evaluation system
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Alfredo Vizzini
> > >
> > >
> > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > > w.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FAlfredo_Vizzini&data=02%7C01%7Cag
> > > osti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496
> > > 883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=l%2FzzbtHSq
> > > e8v9Q1OZXAzQdKRcoNbSk3cCM8gT4mnjLw%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >                    /--- Phylogeny
> > >                /---+
> > >                |   \---- of unknown
> > >          /-----+
> > >          |     \----- Fungal
> > >        --+
> > >          \------------- Diversity
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 6 lug 2020 alle ore 16:19 Ivie, Michael via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> ha scritto:
> > >
> > >> Carlos, this issue has nothing to do with science or logic, it is
> > >> purely the politics of academic advancement of scientists’ careers.
> > >> We have to support that, no matter how unscientific or illogical
> > >> the mechanism (or even inappropriate) is.  I agree with your
> > >> points, but not your
> > conclusion.
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________________________
> > >> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> > >>
> > >> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
> > >>
> > >> US Post Office Address:
> > >> Montana Entomology Collection
> > >> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> > >> PO Box 173145
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of
> > >> Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom
> > >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 7:14 AM
> > >> To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> > >>
> > >> Dear Taxacomers,
> > >> I don't care about the JIF or about Zootaxa not getting it anymore.
> > >> The JIF is unscientific as it is based on a logical fallacy. By not
> > >> getting it, Zootaxa has been released from its chains, even if
> > >> unwillingly. All the whining for having those chains back is
> > >> unscientific as well, and it evidences how poorly prepared our
> > >> community is in some topics of logic and scientific methodology.
> > >> Moreover, with so many free-to-publish and free-to-read platinum
> > >> open access journals out there, every page published in a paywalled
> > >> journal is a disservice to Taxonomy. This is 2020. We have the
> > >> means to be better and to do better.
> > >> Beyond that, I will not sign an "I support Zootaxa" letter but I
> > >> would sign a neutral statement such as "We have reviewed for
> > >> Zootaxa and we state that no misconduct related to journal
> > >> self-citations has been suggested or demanded from us...". I have
> > >> never published in Zootaxa, while I have written three manuscript
> > >> reviews (about 25
> > >> pages) within the last six months. So, if you think that a "no
> > >> journal self-citation misconduct"
> > >> neutral statement signed by reviewers can be of any use in getting
> > >> Zootaxa back to the IF fallacy, you can count with my signature.
> > >> Kind regards,
> > >> Carlos
> > >>
> > >> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> > >> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> > >> FI-20014 University of Turku
> > >> Finland
> > >> Myriatrix
> > >> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fm
> > >> yriatrix.myspecies.info%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C6
> > >> 7b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%
> > >> 7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=Lkoujx6OQ%2FEKzWBTO8I0vTIAFv
> > >> Zd2Hp1mmxuFC4nEDA%3D&reserved=0>
> > >> ResearchGate profile
> > >> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > >> www.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=02%
> > >> 7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe000
> > >> 3e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=
> > >> FQn%2BEdObYPUl0kjsjT6Dsi9CxwK%2FRqxoCQRUbNZTtXM%3D&reserved=0>
> > >> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> > >> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > >> www.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ca
> > >> gosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b94
> > >> 96883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=NbGfGVRk
> > >> K0d1hYsY7Xdh9ostvWnfkXy1YI6uzuCDwsA%3D&reserved=0>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>
> > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> > >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or
> unsubscribe, visit:
> > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fma
> > >> ilman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=
> > >> 02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe
> > >> 0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sda
> > >> ta=4Toxnn%2BLDgdnwm9TfpadMs5kH1SgXNBHn%2B0ba72moRg%3D&reserved=
> > >> 0 You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fta
> > >> xacom.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b569
> > >> 4dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7
> > >> C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=2iQMCF%2BDGNwDJ7Z4t1Z1foTG2wpvu4q
> > >> bU8DXb9T5e2c%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>
> > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> > >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or
> unsubscribe, visit:
> > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fma
> > >> ilman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=
> > >> 02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe
> > >> 0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sda
> > >> ta=4Toxnn%2BLDgdnwm9TfpadMs5kH1SgXNBHn%2B0ba72moRg%3D&reserved=
> > >> 0 You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fta
> > >> xacom.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b569
> > >> 4dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7
> > >> C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=2iQMCF%2BDGNwDJ7Z4t1Z1foTG2wpvu4q
> > >> bU8DXb9T5e2c%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm
> > an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0
> > 1%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b
> > 9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=4Toxnn%2B
> > LDgdnwm9TfpadMs5kH1SgXNBHn%2B0ba72moRg%3D&reserved=0
> > You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> > owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> > searched at:
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac
> > om.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc580
> > 4015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C6372
> > 96670133047350&sdata=2iQMCF%2BDGNwDJ7Z4t1Z1foTG2wpvu4qbU8DXb9T5e2c
> > %3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=4Toxnn%2BLDgdnwm9TfpadMs5kH1SgXNBHn%2B0ba72moRg%3D&reserved=0
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C67b5694dc5804015e4e108d821f1e62a%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637296670133047350&sdata=2iQMCF%2BDGNwDJ7Z4t1Z1foTG2wpvu4qbU8DXb9T5e2c%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>

-- 
Dr Péter Poczai, PhD
Curator, Botany Unit
Finnish Museum of Natural History
PO Box 7 University of Helsinki
FI-00014 Helsinki
Finland
Cell.:+358-41-752-5158
https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/en/person/poczai

"*Vive memor nostri rigidi servator honesti*"
(Live, remember, you are the guardian of our honor)