[Taxacom] [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

Thu Feb 11 11:03:11 CST 2021

I think Thomas makes a good point about the practical issues of
comparability such as a species named for a different life cycle stage so
there is no immediate morphological comparability between them This
limitation may also arise where different sexes are involved (have been in
that situation where I have argued for a species distinction for a disjunct
allopatric population even though I cannot directly compare to all other
species where one is known for only the other sex). I suppose the practical
issues of sequence definitions will be overcome when we can all obtain a
$10 pocket DNA analyser - or at least the cost of a basic microscope.

John Grehan

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:41 AM Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear Carlos,
>
> You mention that you expect a literal answer to your literal question:
> >>> if the commissioners understand logic or not.
> The literal answer is: Yes, they do.
>
> Let me also make clear, that there is no risk that:
> (1) “a molecular paper could claim priority over their own published names”
> (2) “there won't be a chance for integrative taxonomy under the current
> Code”
> (3) “the Commission allows names to be overwritten”
>
> >>> the logic on when a novelty claim is spurious
> In a nomenclatural sense, the following is recognized as explicit intent
> to establish a new nominal taxon:  “Zelomorpha angelsolisi Meierotto, sp.
> nov.”
>
> What is at stake, and what I find both interesting and challenging, is how
> to interpret Article 13.1.1 when only molecular data is provided. Every new
> name published after 1930 must be accompanied by (or point to) a
> description or definition that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate a taxon. Like this one from the paper by
> Meierotto et al. (2019):
> ---------------------------
> Molecular diagnosis
> Nucleotides 43–45 TTA, 54–57 CTTT, 75 G, 136–138 GTG, 165 T, 321 G, 417 G,
> 462 G, 477 C, 561 G, 684 G.
> ---------------------------
> Given the information also provided by Meierotto et al. (2019), I read
> this as an explicit listing of attributes (i.e., specific nucleotides at
> specific positions), which purport to differentiate the taxon from other
> taxa with which it is likely to be confused.
>
> I see attributes, and I see purport to differentiate.
>
> I fully understand your concern, that it is meaningless to differentiate a
> taxon based exclusively on molecular data from a taxon for which we do not
> have any molecular data. But that does not change the fact that the name
> was “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words
> characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon”.
>
> When I describe a species of fly from an adult holotype based on
> morphology, I cannot differentiate this species from those species that are
> described from maggots only.
>
> I am very well aware, that Article 13.1.1 was written with no thoughts of
> molecular data, but we cannot use that as an argument for non-compliance.
>
> All of this is decoupled from my opinion on taxonomic impediment,
> scientific quality, etc.
> It is strict nomenclature as interpreted from the current Code, and
> whenever we see shortcomings in the way Articles are written, we should
> discuss possible improvements for the next version.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com>
> Sent: 11. februar 2021 14:52
> To: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Cc: iczn-list at afriherp.org; Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Dear Thomas,
> My wording is literal and the questions are meant to determine if the
> commissioners understand the logic on when a novelty claim is spurious. No
> one can purport to differentiate when available characters, descriptions,
> specimens, etc., are neglected on purpose, which is what Meierotto et al.
> (2019) did. I remind you that Sharkey claimed several times that he saw
> types and had notes, which he also neglected to use. What I see here is a
> severe author bias in favor of molecular characters, when the same author
> has expert knowledge on morphology and access to comparative specimens. And
> before Michael Sharkey can cry on the rock of the "taxonomic impediment",
> he shall first explain why dozens of species that are very well described
> and documented since 2006 in a very long thesis remain unpublished. I do
> not see that he has used all the resources he had at hand to lower the
> "taxonomic impediment".
>
> In the case of your species, if you provide a diagnosis/discussion in
> which you explain that you are working on another sex or another life
> stage, you "purported to differentiate". What you cannot do is to use a
> whole new set of characters and neglect the morphological ones, when you do
> have the morphological ones at hand. So, no, I assume that you purported to
> differentiate and that your case does not apply to Meierotto et al. (2019).
>
> I still expect a literal answer to my literal question, because it is
> essential for this community to know if the commissioners understand logic
> or not.
>
> Now I am going to tell you who is lowering the taxonomic impediment: the
> myriapodological community. All the new taxa of Myriapoda and Onychophora
> from last year are already databased. We maintain FIVE databases, for
> years: The Onychophora Website, ChiloBase 2.0, MilliBase (successor of
> SysMyr), MyriaLit and Myriatrix. We maintain mailing lists, we maintain a
> Facebook group, we store and share literature, we make good descriptions
> and good diagnoses, and we do integrative taxonomy as well. Now, if someone
> expects me to tell my community that a molecular paper could claim priority
> over their own published names, and that a molecular paper could strip them
> off from priority over the species that they are working right now, that
> person is expecting too much. If I tell them that there won't be a chance
> for integrative taxonomy under the current Code, well, you may rest assured
> that the community around two branches of the Tree of Life will detach
> itself from the current Code. Other communities will follow, for sure. We
> cannot give morphological and integrative taxonomy a chance if the
> Commission allows names to be overwritten and names to be produced without
> diagnosing from the previous. Your choice.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 2:36 PM Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:
> tpape at snm.ku.dk>> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> You ask the Commission:
>
> >>> Can anyone claim that 15 species in one genus (Zelomorpha) are new
> >>> when they know that there are 52 other species
> >>> but they only diagnosed the 15 "new" among them and from the type
> species,
> >>> while neglecting other 51 species on purpose?
>
> As this is a question to the Commission, I take it to mean:
> “Would those 15 new names be available under the ICZN?”
>
> This would depend on the exact wording, but if each of those 15 names were
> “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters
> that are purported to differentiate the taxon”, then the names would be
> available given that all other requirements were fulfilled.
>
> I have myself described new species of the large flesh fly genus
> Sarcophaga, knowing that there are at least 20 nominal taxa in that genus,
> which are based on either a female or a maggot, or where the type material
> is lost and the description useless. I cannot say whether or not my new
> species are conspecific with any of those. I may have various reasons that
> conspecificity is ‘unlikely’, but I usually do not make those explicit. But
> I always provide “a description or definition that states in words
> characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon”.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:archilegt at gmail.com>>
> Sent: 11. februar 2021 10:48
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> Cc: Mallet, James <jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu<mailto:jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu>>;
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>; Thomas Pape <
> tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>; Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Hi Rich,
> "As you noted in an earlier post, diagnoses are useful for differentiating
> a new taxon from previously existing taxa."
> Read both diagnoses and descriptions, because they are meant to achieve
> the same, with a different length. And they are not meant to be "useful",
> they are meant to be methodologically sound, DIFFERENTIAL from the
> previous, and SUFFICIENT.
>
> "They are somewhat less useful with respect to as-yet unnamed taxa."
> That depends on how detailed the diagnoses/description is. And they do NOT
> have to be differential and sufficient (even less "useful") from
> yet-unnamed taxa, because that does not affect the core Principle of
> Priority. It is not previous taxa which should be demonstrably different,
> but new taxa which should be demonstrably new. Additionally, remember that
> we already have molecular species with equal barcodes that got finally
> diagnosed and splitted into two on the basis of non-molecular characters.
> So, barcodes are also not the universal panacea and morphology continues to
> play a role, especially for authors with apparent "hyperdiversity goals".
>
> "One could easily argue that an image or a barcode is vastly more useful
> than a text diagnosis because both are more likely to contain information
> about characters that will help distinguish the new species from both
> previously known *and* as-yet unknown species."
> You continue to use "vastly", which is a particular judgement of value
> from your side. The word "vastly" is mentioned ZERO times in the Code. You
> continue to use "useful", which is not a qualifier that we are discussing
> here. The word "useful" is mentioned ONCE in the Code, in the preface to
> the Fourth Edition, which is NOT part of the Code proper. What we are
> discussing here is the methodological obligation to diagnose differentially
> and sufficiently from the previous. That is not achieved by CHARACTERIZING
> with pictures and barcodes. That is achieved by practicing the
> methodological exercise of DIAGNOSING, i. e., COMPARING. A methodologically
> sound comparison contains equal, shared elements among the taxa compared.
> This is achieved, for two species, by making reference to the genus. A
> methodologically sound comparison contains differential elements which are
> not shared among the taxa compared. This is achieved, for two species, by
> presenting the sufficient diagnostic character state of the new species, or
> the combination of characters which combined provide a sufficient,
> differential diagnosis. Regarding "yet-unknown" species, again I remind you
> that the Code is framed with the Principle of Priority and not with a
> "Principle of Futurity".
>
> "One could easily argue"
> As per the explanation above, your easy argument has been easily nullified.
>
> "What is more powerful: a text description that my new species has a
> longer snout than that other species?  Or an image of both snouts, without
> any text commentary?"
> Apply the same reasoning that I applied to "useful". You can use it as a
> particular judgement of value from your side, but it is mentioned ZERO
> times in the Code. Apply the rest of my previous argument. This is not
> about "useful" and "powerful". This is about the methodological obligation
> to diagnose differentially and sufficiently from the previous.
>
> "Or in the case of DNA barcodes, which is more powerful:  a text
> description that “my new species differs from that other species on the
> basis of 27 differences in the barcode sequence”; or simply providing the
> two barcode sequences without any commentary on the differences?"
> The former will give you both the barcodes AND the comparison, and it will
> achieve SUFFICIENCY and DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE PREVIOUS. The latter is
> inadmissible on methodological grounds, because it fails to exercise
> COMPARISON and therefore DIAGNOSIS. You continue equate CHARACTERIZING with
> DIAGNOSING, but it is only the latter which methodologically satisfies the
> PURPOSE OF DIFFERENTIATING.
>
> Now Rich, as I provided the context of Meierotto et al. (2019), and as I
> have provided profuse methodological explanations, I am going to repeat my
> direct question to you (and to all the Commissioners): Can anyone claim
> that 15 species in one genus (Zelomorpha) are new when they know that there
> are 52 other species but they only diagnosed the 15 "new" among them and
> from the type species, while neglecting other 51 species on purpose? Can
> someone claim that those 15 species are new? Do you support that claim? Was
> letting that claim pass a reviewer and an editorial mistake or not?
> Please, do not attempt to dodge my direct question this time. Not you, not
> the other Commissioners. I am very much looking forward to your answers.
>
> I will proceed by explaining what is going to happen if the Commission
> fails to stop the ongoing nomenclatural vandalism and if it fails to
> declare the recent fallacious claims of novelty unavailable under article
> 13.1.1 of the Code.
> First, the Commission will be failing in securing an organized transition
> from one diagnostic character set to another. Second, the Commission will
> be failing to recognize the necessary role of integrative taxonomy during
> the transition time, which is meant to secure that 250+ years of
> morphological knowledge for 10% of the species is integrated into the
> upcoming, molecularly diagnosed 90% of species.
> As the Commission will fail to the broader taxonomic community, those
> particular taxonomic communities who disagree on having their morphological
> knowledge overwritten by a parallel molecular nomenclatural system will
> split apart from the current ZooCode. I will assist those communities
> myself, and I am sure that many more taxonomists with good knowledge of the
> Code will respond to the call of duty. Community after community, we will
> abandon consensus and we will regroup together. The Commission and the
> molecular taxonomists who want to stay will be left with the "Molecular
> Code of Zoological Nomenclature", and the rest of us will build consensus
> about the same Code, the "Integrative Code of Zoological Nomenclature". We
> will form a new Commission, arbitrarily set the publication date of
> Meierotto et al. (2019) as 31 December 2019, and arbitrarily set 30
> December 2019 as the date of the split of the broader taxonomic community.
> We will adopt the current Code, we will declare unavailable those molecular
> works which fail to differentiate from the previous, and we will strengthen
> Article 13.1.1 and secure a period of integrative taxonomy and a smooth
> transition to molecular diagnoses. The Integrative Code will rule over 100%
> of the described species, except for ca. 500 molecular Hymenoptera species.
> If the Commission thinks that the broader taxonomic community is going to
> sit and watch how our names are overwritten and how our corpus of knowledge
> disregarded, you are very much mistaken.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:14 AM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thank you for the expanded explanation of where you are coming from on
> this.  What you say makes sense, even though I disagree with some of your
> positions. Also, I think I was not clear in the point I was trying to
> make.  I’ll continuing playing the role of devil’s advocate.
>
> As you noted in an earlier post, diagnoses are useful for differentiating
> a new taxon from previously existing taxa. They are somewhat less useful
> with respect to as-yet unnamed taxa. With something like 90% of
> biodiversity in the latter category (i.e., as-yet unnamed), we’re kidding
> ourselves if we think that some sort of textual word-based assertion of
> character differences with the already-known 10% of taxa someone improves
> the “robustness” of a new species description.
>
> One could easily argue that an image or a barcode is vastly more useful
> than a text diagnosis because both are more likely to contain information
> about characters that will help distinguish the new species from both
> previously known *and* as-yet unknown species.  Sure, the text diagnosis
> might accidentally include characters or combinations of characters that
> hep distinguish from future new species.  But there’s a reason I was always
> taught to examine the types of known species – to make sure that the suite
> of characters I’m using to distinguish my new species are legit (and not
> missing from the previous text diagnosis of the previous species, or based
> on differences in measurement techniques, or whatever).
>
> What is more powerful:  a text description that my new species has a
> longer snout than that other species?  Or an image of both snouts, without
> any text commentary?  Having only the words tells us only about the
> relative snout length. Having the images shows us that, in a potentially
> quantifiable way, and probably shows us a whole bunch of additional
> characters that might prove useful for distinguishing my new species from
> future as-yet unknown species.  Or in the case of DNA bar codes, which is
> more powerful:  a text description that “my new species differs from that
> other species on the basis of 27 differences in the barcode sequence”; or
> simply providing the two barcode sequences without any commentary on the
> differences?  In the latter case, the differences are self-evident from
> simply comparing the two sequences. And so are he positions of the
> differences.  And so are all the other positions in the entire barcode for
> comparing to as-yet unknown future species.
>
> Sure, the best thing to do would be to show the pictures *and* point out
> the differences *and* provide the sequences *and* identify, using words,
> which positions of the sequence differs.  That’s good (better) taxonomy, of
> course.  But the point is that, a compelling case can be made that
> providing the raw data (hence allowing for comparisons with future species)
> is superior than explicit statements about specific characters that happen
> to distinguish a new species from previously described species.
>
> I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to say your wrong.  In fact, I
> personally agree with a lot of what you say (though not all).  I just want
> to illustrate that a “call to battle” might be a bit overkill on this
> issue; and instead a reasoned discussion about alternative approaches to
> establishing new species.
>
> Above all, I do not want to discourage these debates – quite the
> opposite!  Now is *exactly* the time to be having these discussions,
> because the ICZN very much wants to get input on what the community would
> like to see in the next (5th Edition) of the Code.  The Code is not for the
> benefit of the Commission; it is for the benefit of all taxonomy, biology,
> science, humanity, etc.  It’s important to come up with a Code that both
> respects historical practice and accommodates trends that apply to the
> future (and the other ~90% of the world’s species that are yet to be named…)
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> BishopMuseum.org<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbs.bishopmuseum.org%2Fstaff%2Fpylerichard.html&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C56756b97ca004da3d1e908d8ce943081%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637486483164870602%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sSkz6yD9WxnZGH97uhyFpntvSrlDtpx6jAr5LJioHz8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> 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.
>
> From: Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:archilegt at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 4:27 PM
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> Cc: Mallet, James <jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu<mailto:jmallet at oeb.harvard.edu>>;
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>; Thomas Pape <
> tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>; Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE
>
> Uppercase letter used for stylization of text and not for shouting
>
> So here came Rich with a "one-line morphological diagnosis":
> Rich: “my new taxon differs from that other existing taxon in that mine
> has a longer snout”
> Well, yes, that is a methodologically correct DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS,
> which hopefully is also SUFFICIENT to differentiate both taxa in question.
> And it does fulfill "the requirement that authors must describe in words
> the characters purported to differentiate the taxon when proposing new
> names". And it also fulfills the logical requirement of "differentiating
> from the previous", in this example the previous taxon with the shorter
> snout.
>
> WHAT IS NOT A DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS:
> 1) A "high-resolution photograph of the type" per se
> 2) A "DNA barcode of the type", when there are no barcodes for the vast
> majority of congeneric species and a comparison with the previous species
> is not made
>
> THIS IS A PROBLEM OF DEFINITION:
> <Rich>"the latter two are"</Rich>   NOT   <Rich>"VASTLY more useful in
> diagnosing the taxon"</Rich>   because CHARACTERIZING IS NOT DIAGNOSING.
>
> More about diagnoses:
> 1) Morphological diagnoses do NOT stand in the air. They stand within a
> classification, and they inherit the characters of the upper hierarchies.
> So, Scolopendra morsitans inherits the characters of Arthropoda, Myriapoda,
> Chilopoda, Scolopendromorpha, Scolopendridae and Scolopendra, unless
> otherwise stated at the species rank or above. That is ANCHORING.
> 2) Authors are meant to create a SUFFICIENT diagnosis for a given taxon,
> shorter or longer, which purports to differentiate that taxon from the
> closely related taxa. In the case of a species, it can be differentiated
> from other species in the genus, or subgenus, or from a smaller aggregate
> of species. That is PURPOSE TO DIFFERENTIATE. Differentiation can be
> achieved by means of just one character state of one character, the
> so-called SUFFICIENT CHARACTER STATE, or it can be achieved by CHARACTER
> STATES WHICH COMBINED ARE SUFFICIENT to differentiate the taxon
>
> This is a one-line diagnosis for Scolopendropsis duplicata: With 39 or 43
> leg-bearing segments. The binomen provides ANCHORING to a genus in which
> all known species have 21 or 23 leg-bearing segments and PURPORTS TO
> DIFFERENTIATE the new species by using the character state “39 or 43
> leg-bearing segments”, which is SUFFICIENT for separating the new species
> from all previously known species in that genus. This can be done because
> the full set of character states of a character has been scored for all
> species in the genus.
>
> What the enthusiasts of barcoding are trying to do is to use an incomplete
> set of character states for one character which has not been scored for all
> species in one genus. And they still pretend to claim priority under the
> Code over the names of new species proposed using that method, even when
> they recognize that additional species exist which have not been
> molecularly surveyed. That means that the purpose of "differentiating from
> the previous" and Article 13.1.1 cannot be considered as satisfied, unless
> that we all suddenly become blind to logical fallacies. Something cannot be
> claimed to be "new" and "differentiated" when a comparison has not been
> made. Amusing that I have to explain this.
>
> If and only if a full set of barcodes is completed for a given group, the
> logical fallacy will exist no more, as all species would have a full set of
> barcodes, and new species could be DIFFERENTIALLY AND SUFFICIENTLY
> DIAGNOSED FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES. Taxa with full sets of barcodes could
> migrate to barcode diagnoses.
>
> Differential barcode diagnoses do not pose a major methodological problem.
> In Myriapodology, we used the methodology already EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO, for
> mitochondrial 16S RNA, because yes, not everything in this world is COI.
> Undoubtedly, this is just one of many options. And I very much encourage
> everyone to read that paper and see how the diagnostic nucleotide changes
> for each species were summarized in figure 5, page 520.
> -----------------------
> Molecular diagnosis of putative Anadenobolus species
> Nucleotide substitutions that are diagnostic for each species were
> determined using the character trace function in the computer program
> MacClade (Maddison and Maddison 2000). Because we are only interested in
> three nodes that are found in all recovered trees (see Results), tree
> choice was unimportant. Therefore one of the most parsimonious trees was
> chosen at random from the set of all equally parsimonious trees reported in
> Bond and Sierwald (2002b, fig. 2). All nucleotide substitutions were
> plotted onto this tree using the ‘Trace All Changes’ function with the
> ‘Unambiguous Changes Only’ option selected. Only those character-state
> changes that were non-homoplasious above the node of interest are used to
> diagnose species.
> However, substitutions that appear in other regions of the phylogeny are
> considered (we differentiate between the two below).
> Each species diagnosis lists the character state (nucleotide) followed
> parenthetically by the nucleotide position number. The position number
> refers to the nucleotide position in the fully aligned data set used in
> this study. A reference alignment of all three species is available in
> electronic form on request from the first author and for download at
> http://core.ecu.edu/biol/bondja<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ecu.edu%2Fbiol%2Fbondja&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C56756b97ca004da3d1e908d8ce943081%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637486483164870602%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5LDp%2B3HIjyMAxPEGqEoDoLZf6rJUP0WH5J9UIqwWOwQ%3D&reserved=0>
> and is also available as Accessory Material from the journal’s website. We
> adopt this approach because the region of 16S sequenced is highly variable
> and is not easily aligned to commonly cited model arthropod genomes (e.g.
> Drosophila yakuba, Clary and Wolstenholme 1985).
>
> Reference: Bond, J. & P. Sierwald. 2003. Molecular taxonomy of the
> Anadenobolus excisus (Diplopoda:Spirobolida:Rhinocricidae) species-group on
> the Caribbean island of Jamaica. Invertebrate Systematics 17 (4):515-528.
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253260124<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F253260124&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C56756b97ca004da3d1e908d8ce943081%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637486483164880596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=JraQolfCp2rwOYZFAWqYPMO7ZU6ZT%2BowBm2bTdS9ia4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> -----------------------
>
> And before someone brings up the topic, diagnoses are short descriptions
> and descriptions are expanded diagnoses. However, given the apparent lack
> of logic and methodology that has brought us to this historically low
> point, it would be advisable that SUFFICIENT, DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSES are
> made mandatory as soon as possible, in an Amendment to the Code, to prevent
> that the purpose of differentiating from the previous continues to be
> vandalized. It would also be most advisable to set an example by declaring
> recent fallacious claims of novelty unavailable under article 13.1.1 of the
> Code.
>
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:19 AM Admin Admin <archilegt at gmail.com<mailto:
> archilegt at gmail.com>> wrote:
> The phrase means nothing else to me than its literal meaning. And as I
> cannot sleep, I will proceed to explain one of the methodological problems
> that is causing all this and that is also present in the previous email by
> Rich.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:07 AM Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:
> > “Good people on both sides!” Now where have I heard that before?
>
> Yup... hence my comment about it being "a very notorious statement in
> another context"...
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list<
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.afriherp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ficzn-list&data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C56756b97ca004da3d1e908d8ce943081%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637486483164890593%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=jc93wpdbreSswJ91jlLXmZr3URolTVK6BtzhIYDsRdk%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:
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.
>