[Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR

Wed Jul 8 05:48:17 CDT 2020

Sorry if the following piece of information has already been mentioned, the
discussion is now progressing in so many directions that I started to get
lost. I just want to mention that according to Google's newly released
Scholar Metrics:

https://scholar.googleblog.com/2020/07/2020-scholar-metrics-released.html ,

Zootaxa has a fairly impressive ranking:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=bio_zoology

With best regards, David Redei

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:50, Péter Poczai via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>