Taxacom: open access journals

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Aug 2 01:40:11 CDT 2023


Torbjörn,


Interesting. I could be wrong, I suppose, since I am very much on the outside of what goes on, looking in, but my strong impression from around here is that individual authors submit their articles to the publisher and pay the OA fees from their own research budget. Maybe things are different where you are?

If I am correct, then the OA fees subtract from the research budget without having any effect whatsoever on the "overheads". This very obviously benefits OA publishers, who can charge OA fees well above the level of likely reader interest in the article. Less obviously, it also benefits the author and their employing institution. It means that each external grant funds less research for the same amount of "overheads". This means that the author has to do less work for the same pay and frees up their time to do other funded projects on a fast turnaround, rather than keeping them tied up doing painstaking research for a longer period of time.

For example, imagine a $1M external grant. The institution claims half as "overheads". This leaves $500K to be spent on the research. If the scientist is tied up for however long it takes to do $500K of painstaking research, then they are "dead weight" for however long that takes. If, on the other hand, they can strategically ditch some of that $500K on OA fees (along with other expenses like travel and accommodation), then they can wrap things up more quickly and become available again to repeat the process, applying for another grant (perhaps from a different funder), out of which the institution will again claim 50% in "overheads". Assuming that the funding is in some sense "public money", the public get less research done for the same amount of funding. Sure they get free access to the published results, but, for most science, hardly anyone will be interested in reading it anyway! The institution and the OA publishers benefit from this in dollar terms, but it doesn't do a lot for science!

Stephen
   On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 06:17:14 pm NZST, Torbjörn Tyler <torbjorn.tyler at biol.lu.se> wrote:  
 
 Stephen,
OK, then I understand your concerns, but in my case the OA fees are also payed collectively from the ”overhead”. In fact I think it is all handled by my university library so it isn’t much different from how subscription fees used to be (and still are in some cases) payed. Isn’t that normal for those institutions and countries that have ”OA licensing agreements” with the major scientific publishers? 
Now most institutions in the developed world are indeed covered by such agreements with e.g. Wiley, Springer and Elsevier, implying that OA fees are not payed for individual published papers or by individual authors but for the collective output from the whole department, institution or country. 
The remaining problem is those reserachers that work at institutions and in countries that cannot afford to pay for such agreements, but these are probably mostly the same as those who could not afford to pay for subscriptions in the past. For them there has been a change from not being able to read their own and their colleagues publications to not being able to publish themselves. Same, but different… Even worse for those, still quite many, advanced amateur taxonomists that are not formally employed at any research institution! 
To be honest, in my opinion OA publishing hasn’t really changed much. The problems with high costs and that ”publication services" are not available for everyone still remain, although now on a different basis. However, I cannot see any solution to this since high-quality ”publication services” will always be costly, someone has to pay these costs and nobody will volonteerely pay for those who cannot pay themselves… (I am aware of that the major publishers now offers various OA fee waivers for authors from developing countries, but I am afraid these will never change much in practice.)
/ Torbjörn


2 aug. 2023 kl. 00:19 skrev Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>:
Torbjörn,

By "research funding", I was referring to the 50% of an external grant that is left over after the institution has claimed the "overheads". Money for subscriptions comes out of the "overheads", by my understanding. OA fees, by contrast, come out of the research funding. That money would otherwise have been spent on research, rather than on publishing fees.
Institutions still claim the 50% in "overheads", by my understanding. OA hasn't changed that. In fact, they still buy subscriptions, as far as I can tell, though that doesn't really matter, since they can do what they like with the "overheads". The point is that publishing costs are now subtracted from the research funding half of an external grant. It just seems a bit of a mystery who exactly benefits from this (other than OA publishers)!
Stephen
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 10:51:26 pm NZST, Torbjörn Tyler <torbjorn.tyler at biol.lu.se> wrote:

So, from where in your opinion did that money come that used to pay for journal subscriptions if it did not come from research funding? 
I know that may differ between countries and institutions, but in general I believe subscriptions to scientific journals have always in one way or another been payed  from research budgets and in my world (Sweden, Lund University) ca 50% of all ”external” fundings that individual researchers obtain are payed as tax (”overhead”) to finance e.g. libraries and their journal subscription (among many other functions that are needed by all researchers alike and together).
I don’t think it should have come as a surprise for anyone that a change from a reader-pay model to an author-pay model would not in itself reduce the total costs of publication and distribution of scientific texts. All costs associated with it, including editorial handling, scientific reviewing, checking for lingusitic errors and plagiarism etc, handling of copyright agreements and other legal and financial matters, copyediting, typesetting, distribution, advertising and archiving (in case of electronic publications), plus any economic revenue wanted by the owner of the journals, does remain the same no matter who pays for it! These costs are real and have to be payed by someone to keep quality and safety in the publishing process, unless someone volunteerely undertakes these duties for free but when researchers do things volunteerely it usually also implies a cost for the ”reasearch budget” since it usually means that they are performing these duties on times when they are actually payed for doing research or teaching… The only costs that may not be cosnidered ”real” are the revenues taken by commercial companies owning journals, but these we can all avoid by choosing journals owned by scientific societies and other non-profit organisations. However, the costs for publishing in journals owned by such non-profit organisations are commonly at (almost) the same level as for journals with commersial owners, suggesting that the profit taken by the latter may not be that huge anyway.
Yours,Torbjörn TYler


1 aug. 2023 kl. 11:41 skrev Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>:
Lyubo,
Realistically, no matter how noble an original vision, the implementation is what matters. I'm not entirely convinced that OA was in any shape or form a noble original vision, but let's put that aside and focus on the implementation:
Before OA, articles were published for free, but readers had to pay to read them. One of the problems was that institutions ended up paying publishers big money for subscriptions. That money did not however come out of research funding. Nevertheless, publishers like Elsevier were making vast profits. Few institutions bought subscriptions to obscure journals, so most readers had to rely on contacts to get hold of those, but it worked because relatively rew readers wanted to read articles from obscure journals. The community just handed around photocopies.
Today, institutions still have to pay big subscriptions AND authors have to pay the publisher big money (for high impact journals) to get the articles published. This money does come out of research funding. The only difference is that now anyone can read the articles freely online. But for low interest articles, the OA fees are set too high. Given that most scientific articles (particularly in taxonomy) are low interest, the combined OA fees for all of them represents a significant chunk of research funding. Sure, some journals aren't very high impact and so charge lower OA fees, but they also tend to publish very prolifically, so the combined OA fees are still significant.
It is just very hard to see exactly who benefits from this and how. Poorer countries, whose libraries cannot afford subscriptions, benefit from free reads of OA articles, but they also want to publish articles and also have less research funding to play with, so they won't want to publish OA. Maybe they can benefit from richer countries publishing OA, gaining free access to articles published in those richer countries. However, at least in taxonomy, it is unclear to what extent taxonomists in poorer countries need or benefit from free access to articles published in richer countries? Besides, this must be balanced by the reduction in research funding in the richer countries, due to them having to pay high OA fees. The cost benefit analysis is complex and, I think, largely unknown. The only thing that is clear is that publishers benefit from OA, particularly publishers of high impact journals and particularly while it is still necessary to buy subscriptions because not everything is OA and one also has the added complication of pre-OA literature which is still hidden behind paywalls.
Institutions using external funding also benefit from strategic spending on OA fees. This can add to their corporate profits, but only at the cost of eating up funding that could otherwise have been used on doing research.
In summary, it is clear that publishers and corporate research institutions benefit financially from OA, but very unclear who else benefits and how.
Cheers, Stephen
   On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 08:57:24 pm NZST, Lyubomir Penev <lyubo.penev at gmail.com> wrote:  

Hi Stephen,
No offense at all, but I really try to separate the meaning and mission of the open access model from its various (mis)interpretations and (mis)uses. The increasing number of articles is not due to the appearance of open access as a model. It is not the publishers - you say they like to publish more and earn more (electric companies also like to do that by expanding their networks and volumes) - who are the reason for the ever growing number of articles. It is the scholarly evaluation system that forces researchers to publish more and more in "high" impact journals. Publishers use that to "sell" the "high" impact to researchers through their journals, independently of that are these open access, subscription-based or of various mixed models currently in place.
You can't blame publishers for doing business just as you can't blame your local shop for doing business through delivering goods to you. The greediness in business, however, should be blamed, I agree. 
As said, the best solution is the gold open access model supported by institutions, societies or sponsors. The model is normally limited in volume per year, because the institutions cannot budget unpredictably and exponentially growing numbers of articles. As an example, more than half of the some 30 biodiversity journals in our own portfolio are free to read and free to publish. What bad in that the authors to have the choice where to publish? 
Best,Lyubo

-----Lyubomir Penev
ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-2186-5033&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BMyRxKMIGANyA8sds6MeiErhN6eEbndSSPK4xN4XuXM%3D&reserved=0


On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:15 AM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

Hi Lyubo,Open Access is a big can of worms. You can claim that it makes scientific outputs more accessible to readers and indeed it does, but that just hides the "dark side". The main problem is that the vast majority of published scientific articles are of little or no relevance to most readers, but, collectively, there are a vast number of such low interest articles, so much that the combined OA fees subtract significantly from available research funding. Therefore, in actual fact, the general reader just gets free access to a vast number of articles that hardly anybody has any reason to read and the cost is less funding for actual research. The few readers who do have reason to read the average low interest paper can, most of the time, read them anyway via institutional subscriptions, subscriptions which have not been abandoned in the OA era (partly because OA is patchy rather than universal). So, many millions of dollars of research funding is being diverted to making low interest articles freely readable to a mere handful of potential readers! Sound like a good idea to you? Probably does, because you, as a publisher, get guaranteed revenue from each article published, even if nobody at all wants to read it! Hence, I have to doubt whether your views on the subject of OA can plausibly be taken as being unbiased! No offence intended, I'm just saying it as it is!Cheers, Stephen
   On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 07:57:10 pm NZST, Lyubomir Penev <lyubo.penev at gmail.com> wrote:  

Calling open access "Scam" sounds to me like blaming a religious system, sincerely preaching equality and love between people, for the actions of its followers, for example in politics (e.g. religious wars) or business (e.g. services around pilgrimage). The story of Journal of Biogeography isn't a rant against open access as a model but against excessive article processing charges and monopolization (or oligopolization) of the model.
It is about inequality and double standards in human societies, not about the publishing model itself. 
So far I am aware about cases of boycotting high APC-based open access journals, however I've never heard about boycotting (=not reading, not citing) open access papers, even those published in most expensive journals. It is fully understandable that authors do not like to be charged for publishing, but I think they also do not like to be charged for, say, EURO 38.95 to access a paper published some 20 years ago. 
Open access was intended to provide equal access to scientific information to all and it did that. The price of it was to create the opposite source of inequality between people who can pay the APC and those who can't.
The solution is probably to be found somewhere in-between as it often happens: a co-existence of various publishing models for the authors and communities to choose from and support to free-to-read-free-to-publish open access (meaning paid by institutions, societies or third parties) or low cost open access based on affordable and fair APCs.
Best regards,Lyubomir
-----Lyubomir Penev
ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-2186-5033&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BMyRxKMIGANyA8sds6MeiErhN6eEbndSSPK4xN4XuXM%3D&reserved=0


On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:54 AM John Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

"  can't believe it has taken you guys so long to react to the Open Access
Scam" Stephen - who are 'you guys'? I am not aware of anyone having their
head in the sand over this issue.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:35 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:



I can't believe it has taken you guys so long to react to the Open Access
Scam, which I have posted about here on Taxacom for years! There are two
main factors involved. You have touched on the one to do with impact
factor. Trying to include taxonomy into the broad area of impact factor
metrics is entirely inappropriate. It leads to all sorts of problems, such
as naming species after celebrities so as to generate publicity. The
reality is that very few readers will be immediately interested in any one
taxonomic article, but it is nevertheless a very valuable part of a much
larger whole. You can build a very interesting house out of bricks, despite
the fact that each individual brick is of low interest to anyone!

The other factor with Open Access is to do with the strategic spending of
external funding, by corporate research entities. Remember that they are
spending other people's money, if it is external funding and the economics
of spending other people's money is very different to the economics of
spending one's own money. I can elaborate if anyone is interested.

Stephen
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 09:19:34 am NZST, John Grehan via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:


I will back up Lynn's comments, especially with respect to ZooNova
(excellent outlet). I have also seen how 'newsletters' of some
organizations (NZ Ent Soc, Lepidopterist Society) generate 'publications'
that are just as good as any commercial product, and yet cost author's
nothing. Sadly, I have at least one colleague with whom I collaborate ask
that we publish co-authored papers in journals with 'high' indices because
that is required of the 'employer' to help keep their job. It's a racket
for sure.

John Grehan

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:52 PM Lynn Raw via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu



wrote:


In the article they say that quality publishing is expensive. That is

only

the case with paper publishing. Open Access is by its very nature an

online

only digital format far less expensive to provide than the older print
journals and with no extra costs for colour. It seems the whole process

of

using citation and other indices rather than the actual quality of the
content is a commercial profit driven hoax promoted by the publishers for
the benefit of their executives and shareholders. It also gives

university

administrators numbers that they can understand whether or not they have
any idea of the content. Even the highly esteemed Nature sometimes
publishes suspect papers. Open access is the ideal low cost publishing
system for societies as the only cost lies in the website maintenance and
development, web server operation and maintenance of the domain
registration.
At the moment I am running a small scale OA journal at NO COST to the
authors so the model can operate with the right support and volunteers
whatever argument is given against it. Obviously it is not a commercial

for

profit model but it is something that can meet a need for both authors

and

users of scientific articles.

Lynn Raw
Independent Researcher & Editor




On 31 Jul 2023, at 21.15, Michael Heads via Taxacom <

taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:


I've criticised the new 'Open Access' publishing model for journals as


a


scam, and here's a new article in J. Biogeogr. against it (note that it
doesn't mention publishing scientists who are amateur or retired):

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fjbi.14697&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9fMHtvZ1L125ZskRQs%2F850FIg7DsENAzdLgVONel1Uw%3D&reserved=0
'Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder

research

equity and careers'

--
Dunedin, New Zealand.

My books:

*Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC,


Boca


Raton FL. 2017.




https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FBiogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand%2FHeads%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781498751872&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m%2B4WETMYDb3z5jXM0b7YKPbB9RLPJK3ogyX6wyeGlv0%3D&reserved=0




*Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge

University

Press, Cambridge. 2014. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2F9781107041028&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WBvb3T6x%2FZZGac1kKZCHfLjrXexujBwfsAhszE3DDDE%3D&reserved=0


*Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California

Press,

Berkeley. 2012. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucpress.edu%2Fbook.php%3Fisbn%3D9780520271968&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190708809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eSfsACzpzuxWppejRJ8GLv1jFq0N0u2AZ3Y7%2B24a7Ko%3D&reserved=0


*Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University


Press,


New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jjkBlco5I%2B8wrUVt%2F0FZQXLDQDuGCqYnWRh6DtXE%2BMg%3D&reserved=0
<



https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC%26dq%3Dpanbiogeography%26source%3Dgbs_navlinks_s&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yASqydbxK2g5kYqDiPjgJkIpQh%2BwnJPNtW9lSS8HOko%3D&reserved=0



_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:

https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom

You can reach the person managing the list at:

taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu

The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gp%2FIr%2F7dRtWS4fMkLBHCQ4kuOcnJ4wIxKxRQitb9KX4%3D&reserved=0


Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration


for

about 36 years, 1987-2023.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at:

taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu

The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gp%2FIr%2F7dRtWS4fMkLBHCQ4kuOcnJ4wIxKxRQitb9KX4%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
about 36 years, 1987-2023.




--
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aGG5D0v09c8xbUcOUw%2BEKK3muIENNkNZNoQwj4X%2BP9I%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gp%2FIr%2F7dRtWS4fMkLBHCQ4kuOcnJ4wIxKxRQitb9KX4%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
about 36 years, 1987-2023.




-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aGG5D0v09c8xbUcOUw%2BEKK3muIENNkNZNoQwj4X%2BP9I%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gp%2FIr%2F7dRtWS4fMkLBHCQ4kuOcnJ4wIxKxRQitb9KX4%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.



_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C391bc170b6e642553d9708db93235408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265552190865025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gp%2FIr%2F7dRtWS4fMkLBHCQ4kuOcnJ4wIxKxRQitb9KX4%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.



-------------------------------------------------------------------





Torbjörn Tyler, Ph.D,





– Curator at herbarium LD.


– Editor in Chief of Nordic Journal of Botany.





– Responsible for the project The Hieracia of Sweden.





Postal address:


Botanical Museum


Box 117


SE-221 00 Lund





Address for parcels and visitors:


ArkivCentrum Syd


Porfyrvägen 20


SE-224 78 Lund





tel. +46 (0)46-222 42 34 (automatically re-directing to my mobile)








e-mail: torbjorn.tyler[at]biol.lu.se





Private address: Enningervägen 12, SE-243 31 Höör (=Hoeoer), Sweden

___________________________________________________________________










-------------------------------------------------------------------





Torbjörn Tyler, Ph.D,





– Curator at herbarium LD.


– Editor in Chief of Nordic Journal of Botany.





– Responsible for the project The Hieracia of Sweden.





Postal address:


Botanical Museum


Box 117


SE-221 00 Lund





Address for parcels and visitors:


ArkivCentrum Syd


Porfyrvägen 20


SE-224 78 Lund





tel. +46 (0)46-222 42 34 (automatically re-directing to my mobile)








e-mail: torbjorn.tyler[at]biol.lu.se





Private address: Enningervägen 12, SE-243 31 Höör (=Hoeoer), Sweden

___________________________________________________________________







  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list