[Taxacom] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

Fri Feb 12 12:29:13 CST 2021

Hi Mike,
Thank you for your dismissive and uninformed reply. I will reply to the
"uninformed" part, with the hope that you actually read the papers involved
and make your own deductions. After I present what I will write below, what
is actually FALSE is your claim on my statements being untrue. My
statements remain TRUE.
For your information, I only receive the daily digest. I did not see
Martin's reply to the list until now. I saw yours because you addressed it
to me. So, take your words down a notch.

Hi, Martin!
Thank you for bringing up this topic: "So it seems that there is actually
an agreement to take previously described species into account!"

First, some clarifications. The correct Meierotto et al. (2019a) was
published in Zootaxa and dates from 7.iii.2019. The correct Meierotto et
al. (2019b) was published in the online edition of the Deutsche
Entomologische Zeitschrift on 25.vii.2019, in a way that did not satisfy
the provisions of the 2012 Amendment for e-publication. The original pdf
was silently replaced for another version a few days later, which still did
not comply with the requirements for e-publication. The nomenclatural acts
in Meierotto et al. (2019b), take validity from the printed edition of
December 2019, which in absence of further clarification is set to
31.xii.2019. Sharkey et al. (2021) incorrectly swapped the priority among
those papers and they and their reviewers missed that. However, the
statement by Sharkey et al. (2021) that :
"In the Meierotto et al. (2019a) paper there was a clear statement that
coauthor Sharkey had seen all of the relevant types" remains true, for the
wrong reason. That statement ORIGINALLY belongs NOT to what Zamani et al.
(2020) cited as "Meierotto et al. (2019)" (without letter) and NOT to what
Sharkey et al. (2021) cited as "Meierotto et al. (2019a)" (incorrect
dating, DEZ article) but to the TRUE Meierotto et al. (2019a), the one by
Meierotto, Sharkey & van Achtenberg. In the true Meierotto et al. (2019a:
132) we can read "Some additional species from various genera are
transferred to Zelomorpha or Hemichoma based on notes and photographs of
the type specimens by MJS." Meierotto et al. (2019a) subsequently presented
a list of new combinations, which are anchored to the clearly stated
diagnoses of the genera Zelomorpha and Hemichoma contained in that article.

The statement that appears in Meierotto et al. (2019b: 122) [July, but
December] is:
"Type specimens of all previously described *Zelomorpha* and *Hemichoma*
species were examined by MJS and his notes were used to verify that *Z.
arizonensis* is the sole previously described species in the genus."
The first part of that statement is assumed to be true in absence of
evidence of the contrary. The second part of that statement is also TRUE,
but it missed the word "originally" between "the sole previously" and
"described species in the genus". That word was important as, taking into
account the progress made by Meierotto et al. (2019a), *Z. arizonensis* was
NOT the only included species in the genus Zelomorpha, not since March 7,
2019.
Sharkey et al. (2021) wrote: "In the Meierotto et al. (2019a) [sic!] paper
there was a clear statement that coauthor Sharkey had seen all of the
relevant types and that in his opinion none of the species treated were
conspecific with these except for Zelomorpha arizonensis."
The second part of the new statement is FALSE because:
1) "the sole previously described species in the genus" does not equate to
"the only included species in the genus" and
2) according to Meierotto et al. (2019b: 123): "Including the fifteen new
species described here, there are 67 described species of Zelomorpha (Yu et
al. 2016)."
I read that as Sharkey et al. (2021) being incorrect about their own work
(Meierotto et al., 2019b) by a number as big as 51 species conspecific with
Z. arizonensis.

As Meierotto et al. (2019b) anchored their "new" 15 species of Zelomorpha
only to the GENUS concept and only demonstrated that those "new" species
were MOLECULARLY different from Z. arizonensis (the type species), their
purportedly new species are based on a logical fallacy, do not comply with
Article 13.1.1 and the names are therefore unavailable for the purposes of
Zoological Nomenclature. They are most welcome to use the names for the
purposes of Conservation Biology if they want.

Kind regards,
Carlos

Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
FI-20014 University of Turku
Finland
Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
ResearchGate profile
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>

El vie, 12 feb 2021 a las 20:11, Michael A. Ivie (<mivie at montana.edu>)
escribió:

> LOL, you think I worry about offending you?   After what offensive
> comments you are throwing out, that is not an issue.  As for untrue
> statements, read responses from others, there are several. Especially see
> Martin's message
>
> "What inflammatory rhetoric is: Claiming that 15 species are new when they
> have not been diagnosed from 51 previous species."
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Sharkey et al. (2021) reply to this accusation on p. 6-7:
>
> 1. “The method ignores previously described species”
>
> I do not believe you can document a single person involved in any of this
> that is "people burning all science around them because they care ZERO for
> who is coming after."  Another example of untrue statements.
>
> Mike
> On 2/12/2021 11:03 AM, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz wrote:
>
> Mike,
> In case that you felt so touched by "Of course, there will be many who are
> at the end of their careers, who won't care about integrative taxonomy"
> that you had to write all those kind words, please note that mine were not
> directed towards you. Now, if you think that there are no people burning
> all science around them because they care ZERO for who is coming after, you
> are wrong. Those people definitely exist, and towards them I directed my
> comment. I hope that is not your case.
> Now, if you may enlighten me on what you call "untrue statements", please
> do so. Otherwise keep your rage against me to yourself and refrain from
> offending me.
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyriatrix.myspecies.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7C7a04a66e9ed34f28b61908d8cf808b88%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637487498743001595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=uq7eIqv70hhkqCIfM79OtSynzbKilrNDBO81BVckaAM%3D&reserved=0>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7C7a04a66e9ed34f28b61908d8cf808b88%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637487498743011586%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ZCLeA0%2FK13czmQRVthvhfOrKP2V2L0%2FiLS3Yru1%2FZ1w%3D&reserved=0>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7C7a04a66e9ed34f28b61908d8cf808b88%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637487498743011586%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jOW5NSxthYTBLfjIaS3LnfvD0hfsi9JibcfoBf3JAA0%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> El vie, 12 feb 2021 a las 18:54, Michael A. Ivie (<mivie at montana.edu>)
> escribió:
>
>> Carlos,
>>
>> Your ageism and aggressive holier-than-thou approach will simply place
>> you as a noisy sideliner, with no leadership role in the future, zero
>> respect and less influence.  Your willingness to make untrue statements to
>> fire people to your side are not doing you nor your cause any good.  If you
>> want to have a role, stop this crap.  The statement below shows you to be
>> totally out of touch with reality.  Just stop raging and do something
>> useful.  Otherwise, maybe go to Florida and work for Trump, he likes your
>> sort of approach.
>>
>> Mike
>> On 2/12/2021 6:54 AM, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz wrote:
>>
>> Of course, there will be many who are at the end of their careers, who
>> won't care about integrative taxonomy
>>
>> --
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>