Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

Thu Aug 24 15:46:33 CDT 2023

Thanks for the word of caution Mike. I am referring to CODA as a fraud, but
not making any assertions about individuals with respect to ' intentional
perversion of truth'. CODA is itself fraudulent as it does not do what it
is constructed to do - to provide scientific (empirical) evidence for
conclusions about (chance) dispersal and vicariance. It is a
fraudulent practice because it misrepresents fossil calibrated molecular
divergence ages as actual or maximal (which is simply impossible
empirically, it has to be imagined), uses recipes such as BioGeoBears that
can render results in favor of chance dispersal when vicariance is an
equally applicable mechanism, and it uses areas that have no
empirical (scientifically verifiable) boundaries. Whether CODA supporters
knowingly ignore this is another matter.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 4:35 PM Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> John,
>
> Perhaps you need to look up the definition of fraud, as it is a word
> worthy of civil suit for slander:
>
> "**intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part
> with something of value or to surrender a legal right"
>
> Fraud is to get something of value, it is not the same as suppression.
>
> perhaps you mean dispute or suppression.
>
> Mike.
>
> On 8/24/2023 2:16 PM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> > **External Sender**
> >
> > Yep - although CODA stands for center of origin, dispersal, and
> > adaptation (adaptation as a means of dispersal, and dispersal as a
> > mechanism for differentiation). I see no problem bringing the matter up
> > here as many taxonomists have strong views about biogeography (haven't
> met
> > any that don't at least), and all the molecular taxonomists/systematists
> > practice CODA methods that don't do what they claim, or use non
> > empirically non-existent units of analysis.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:52 PM Tony Rees<tonyrees49 at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John, an 800 word (all right, 791) extended quotation disputing the
> >> origins of COVID hardly qualifies as "not wanting to go down the COVID
> >> hole", but I will let it pass...
> >>
> >> I must confess the acronym CODA as related to biogeography is unfamiliar
> >> to me, however a brief google search led me here: "Biotic assembly in
> >> evolutionary biogeography: a case for integrative pluralism" by Juan J.
> >> Morrone. published in 2020 in "Frontiers of Biogeography", which claims
> to
> >> "... discuss the differences between the dispersal-vicariance model and
> the
> >> center of origin-dispersal-vicariance (CODA) and vicariance models". My
> >> guess is that if you have a problem with claimed fraud in "CODA
> practice",
> >> you should take it up in a forum or publication route relevant to that
> >> topic. Sorry.
> >>
> >> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hihsahO7MV4wq2rCQvOgdt7PeTn0gqKJiklpt11coDs%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 05:31, John Grehan<calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would add that the examples given concern instances where the fraud
> >>> involved a minority but what happens when the fraud is committed by the
> >>> majority (as in CODA practice)?
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:26 PM John Grehan<calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yeah  - not wanting to go down the COVID hole, or any other subject.
> >>>> Just happened to be example issues. Cheers, John
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tony Rees<tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi John, you wrote:
> >>>>>>   If a climate paper was published in Nature or Science, which are
> not
> >>>>> climate journals, is this because the authors wished to avoid peer
> review?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, I think it is fair to say that these are special cases, that sit
> >>>>> somewhere above more discipline-specific journals, for articles
> deemed to
> >>>>> have high importance; and accordingly, would seek out the best (?)
> experts
> >>>>> in relevant fields for review of any particular article. That would
> be the
> >>>>> hope, anyway :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not going to go down the rabbit hole of origins of Covid at this
> time,
> >>>>> however I note that the Rupert Murdoch-owned "Australian" was
> strongly
> >>>>> promoting views by a Sky News Journalist (who wrote a book on the
> same
> >>>>> subject last year) that everything is a cover-up and the virus
> escaped from
> >>>>> the Wuhan Lab. I fact checked her first 4 statements and they were
> all
> >>>>> incorrect, after which I lost faith in her analysis. For now I think
> the
> >>>>> best summary is probably at
> >>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOrigin_of_COVID-19&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0295lXjBUVhSgmDFzog3gsUmmW9Mb8h2MtonvgOhFVY%3D&reserved=0, which Taxacom
> >>>>> readers are welcome to consult for more detail, or even amend if they
> >>>>> disagree with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards - Tony
> >>>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hihsahO7MV4wq2rCQvOgdt7PeTn0gqKJiklpt11coDs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 04:43, John Grehan<calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That's an interesting quote about not publishing in a climate
> journal
> >>>>>> for a climate paper:  "This is a common avenue taken by 'climate
> skeptics'
> >>>>>> in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field." But
> just
> >>>>>> because a climate paper is not published in a climate journal does
> not mean
> >>>>>> that it can avoid 'peer' review. It depends on the journal and the
> intent
> >>>>>> of the editor to ensure that proper peer review takes place. If a
> climate
> >>>>>> paper was published in Nature or Science, which are not climate
> journals,
> >>>>>> is this because the authors wished to avoid peer review?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:40 PM John Grehan<calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for that clarification Tony. As for Nature "might have a
> >>>>>>> higher degree of scrutiny" - who knows. Saw this as yet unresolved
> issue
> >>>>>>> below, this time involving Nature. I don't keep regular track of
> such
> >>>>>>> questions, although perhaps I should, and write something on fraud
> in CODA
> >>>>>>> biogeography - but then who would publish such?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A growing number of people, including prominent scientists, are
> >>>>>>> calling for a full retraction of a high-profile study published in
> the
> >>>>>>> journal Nature in March 2020 that explored the origins of
> SARS-CoV-2.
> >>>>>>> The paper, whose authors included immunology and microbiology
> >>>>>>> professor Kristian G. Andersen, declared that evidence clearly
> showed that
> >>>>>>> SARS-CoV-2 did not originate from a laboratory.
> >>>>>>> “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory
> >>>>>>> construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the authors wrote
> in
> >>>>>>> February.
> >>>>>>> Yet a trove of recently published documents reveal that Andersen
> and
> >>>>>>> his co-authors believed that the lab leak scenario was not just
> possible,
> >>>>>>> but likely.
> >>>>>>> “[The] main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version
> of
> >>>>>>> this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were
> already doing
> >>>>>>> this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with
> that
> >>>>>>> scenario,” Andersen said to his colleagues, according to a report
> from
> >>>>>>> Public, which published a series of Slack messages between the
> authors.
> >>>>>>> Anderson was not the only author who privately expressed doubts
> that
> >>>>>>> the virus had natural origins. Public cataloged dozens of
> statements from
> >>>>>>> Andersen and his co-authors—Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward
> C.
> >>>>>>> Holmes, and Robert F. Garry—between the dates January 31 and
> February 28,
> >>>>>>> 2020 suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have been engineered.
> >>>>>>> ” …the fact that we are discussing this shows how plausible it is,”
> >>>>>>> Garry said of the lab-leak hypothesis.
> >>>>>>> “We unfortunately can’t refute the lab leak hypothesis,” Andersen
> >>>>>>> said on Feb. 20, several days after the authors published their
> pre-print.
> >>>>>>> To complicate matters further, new reporting from The Intercept
> >>>>>>> reveals that Anderson had an $8.9 million grant with NIH pending
> final
> >>>>>>> approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci when the Proximal Origin paper was
> >>>>>>> submitted.
> >>>>>>> ‘Fraud and Scientific Misconduct’?
> >>>>>>> The findings have led several prominent figures to accuse the
> authors
> >>>>>>> of outright deception.
> >>>>>>> Richard H. Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry
> and
> >>>>>>> Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, called the paper
> “scientific
> >>>>>>> fraud.”
> >>>>>>> “The 2020 ‘Proximal Origin’ paper falsely claimed science showed
> >>>>>>> COVID-19 did not have a lab origin,” tweeted Ebright. “Newly
> released
> >>>>>>> messages from the authors show they did not believe the
> conclusions of the
> >>>>>>> paper and show the paper is the product of scientific fraud and
> scientific
> >>>>>>> misconduct.”
> >>>>>>> Ebright and Silver are among those pushing a petition urging Nature
> >>>>>>> to retract the article in light of these findings.
> >>>>>>> Among those to sign the petition was Neil Harrison, a professor of
> >>>>>>> anesthesiology and molecular pharmacology at Columbia University.
> >>>>>>> “Virologists and their allies have produced a number of papers that
> >>>>>>> purport to show that the virus was of natural origin and that the
> pandemic
> >>>>>>> began at the Huanan seafood market,” Harrison told The Telegraph.
> “In fact
> >>>>>>> there is no evidence for either of these conclusions, and the
> email and
> >>>>>>> Slack messages among the authors show that they knew at the time
> that this
> >>>>>>> was the case.”
> >>>>>>> Only ‘Expressing Opinions’?
> >>>>>>> Dr. Joao Monteiro, chief editor of Nature, has rebuffed calls for a
> >>>>>>> retraction, The Telegraph notes, saying the authors were merely
> “expressing
> >>>>>>> opinions.”
> >>>>>>> This claim is dubious at best. From the beginning, the Proximal
> >>>>>>> Origin study was presented as authoritative and scientific. Jeremy
> Farrar,
> >>>>>>> a British medical researcher and now the chief scientist at the
> World
> >>>>>>> Health Organization (WHO), told USA Today that Proximal Origin was
> the
> >>>>>>> “most important research on the genomic epidemiology of the
> origins of this
> >>>>>>> virus to date.”
> >>>>>>> Dr. Anthony Fauci, speaking from the White House podium in April
> >>>>>>> 2020, cited the study as evidence that the mutations of the virus
> were
> >>>>>>> “totally consistent with a jump from a species of an animal to a
> human.”
> >>>>>>> Fact-check organizations were soon citing the study as proof that
> COVID-19
> >>>>>>> “could not have been manipulated.”
> >>>>>>> Far from being presented as a handful of scientists “expressing
> >>>>>>> opinions,” the Proximal Origin study was treated as gospel, a
> dogma that
> >>>>>>> could not even be questioned. This allowed social media companies
> (working
> >>>>>>> hand-in-hand with government agencies) to censor people who
> publicly stated
> >>>>>>> what Andersen and his colleagues were saying privately—that it
> seemed
> >>>>>>> plausible that SARS-CoV-2 came from the laboratory in Wuhan that
> >>>>>>> experimented on coronaviruses and had a checkered safety record.
> >>>>>>> Indeed, even as media and government officials used the Proximal
> >>>>>>> Origin study to smear people as conspiracy theorists for
> speculating that
> >>>>>>> COVID-19 might have emerged from the Wuhan lab, a Defense
> Intelligence
> >>>>>>> Agency study commissioned by the government questioned the study’s
> >>>>>>> scientific rigor.
> >>>>>>> “The arguments that Andersen et al. use to support a natural-origin
> >>>>>>> scenario for SARS CoV-2 are based not on scientific analysis, but
> on
> >>>>>>> unwarranted assumptions,” the now-declassified paper concluded.
> “In fact,
> >>>>>>> the features of SARS-CoV-2 noted by Andersen et al. are consistent
> with
> >>>>>>> another scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory…”
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:22 PM Tony Rees<tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi John,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I took a look at the paper which is online and open access. I must
> >>>>>>>> say when I saw it at the time of original publication I thought
> its main
> >>>>>>>> conclusions very odd and at variance with almost all other
> research on the
> >>>>>>>> topic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just to be clear per your thread title - the paper does not appear
> >>>>>>>> in "Nature" (which I imagine might have a higher degree of
> scrutiny), but
> >>>>>>>> in "The European Physical Journal Plus" which is a different
> outlet, albeit
> >>>>>>>> from the same publisher.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best - Tony
> >>>>>>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >>>>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hihsahO7MV4wq2rCQvOgdt7PeTn0gqKJiklpt11coDs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:59, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> >>>>>>>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Recently when I noted about ZooNova as a publication option, a
> >>>>>>>>> Taxacom
> >>>>>>>>> colleague implied (oof list) that the journal was dubious
> because he
> >>>>>>>>> considered one (or more) papers to be dubious (in that person's
> >>>>>>>>> judgement).
> >>>>>>>>> Here is a classic case of a 'Top' journal retracting a paper,
> >>>>>>>>> showing that
> >>>>>>>>> the supposed 'prestige' of a journal has nothing necessarily to
> do
> >>>>>>>>> with its
> >>>>>>>>> content. In this case it was picked up on because the paper in
> >>>>>>>>> question
> >>>>>>>>> appears to have run afoul of a sufficient number of prominent or
> >>>>>>>>> influential researchers. In biogeography this does not happen, as
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> prominent (powerful and influential) players all play to the
> fraud
> >>>>>>>>> (that
> >>>>>>>>> being the misrepresentation of what CODA methods can or cannot
> do or
> >>>>>>>>> support). Power is everything in science.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Top science publisher Springer Nature said it has withdrawn a
> study
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> presented misleading conclusions on climate change impacts after
> an
> >>>>>>>>> investigation prompted by an AFP inquiry.
> >>>>>>>>> AFP reported in September 2022 on concerns over the peer-reviewed
> >>>>>>>>> study by
> >>>>>>>>> four Italian scientists that appeared earlier that year in the
> >>>>>>>>> European
> >>>>>>>>> Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature.
> >>>>>>>>> The study had drawn positive attention from climate-sceptic
> media.
> >>>>>>>>> The paper, titled "A critical assessment of extreme events trends
> >>>>>>>>> in times
> >>>>>>>>> of global warming", purported to review data on possible changes
> in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts
> >>>>>>>>> and other
> >>>>>>>>> extreme weather events.
> >>>>>>>>> Several climate scientists contacted by AFP said the study
> >>>>>>>>> manipulated
> >>>>>>>>> data, cherry picked facts and ignored others that would
> contradict
> >>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>> assertions, prompting the publisher to launch an internal review.
> >>>>>>>>> "The Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had
> >>>>>>>>> confidence in
> >>>>>>>>> the results and conclusions of the article," Springer Nature told
> >>>>>>>>> AFP in an
> >>>>>>>>> email late Wednesday.
> >>>>>>>>> The journal's editors published an online note stating that the
> >>>>>>>>> paper was
> >>>>>>>>> retracted due to concerns over "the selection of the data, the
> >>>>>>>>> analysis and
> >>>>>>>>> the resulting conclusions".
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%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%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rgtDwHWdsvGS6C8ZzDMtJc9Pcbnt3ckvkzhVHQYRSZA%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%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%3D&reserved=0  (use the 'visit archived web
> >>>>>>> site' link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%3D&reserved=0  (use the 'visit archived web
> >>>>>> site' link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%3D&reserved=0  (use the 'visit archived web
> site'
> >>>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%3D&reserved=0  (use the 'visit archived web
> site'
> >>> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
> >>>
> > --
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%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%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rgtDwHWdsvGS6C8ZzDMtJc9Pcbnt3ckvkzhVHQYRSZA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rgtDwHWdsvGS6C8ZzDMtJc9Pcbnt3ckvkzhVHQYRSZA%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%7Ce92542039da1472c341f08dba4e34b07%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285068934129682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8iR7NpXDgAFOFe0s2hXNuuw6NglYs%2B4OeHurXlPGLIk%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.