Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

Thu Aug 24 16:28:29 CDT 2023

If one sticks to fraud as 'intentional deception' then I would agree. As I
cannot provide proof of such intention, this would not apply. CODA is an
operational deception, and in that regard I consider it fraudulent,
definitions notwithstanding. Cheers, John

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 5:24 PM Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

> What you describe does not fit the definition of Fraud.
>
>
> On 8/24/2023 2:46 PM, John Grehan wrote:
>
> ***External Sender***
> 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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oXdxR3VH3jp29aNvk6A1vf0mZ%2FwOgw%2FbFtl20WcUWLg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gHzpu5CfwiyAgrdTJ76%2Bsd4tywED1p%2F27bqT%2BdRMUkU%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oXdxR3VH3jp29aNvk6A1vf0mZ%2FwOgw%2FbFtl20WcUWLg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oXdxR3VH3jp29aNvk6A1vf0mZ%2FwOgw%2FbFtl20WcUWLg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=knqX2NcmTBwomh%2B8Xue98MkwdCcOSV2j3fhByZXGnL4%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=knqX2NcmTBwomh%2B8Xue98MkwdCcOSV2j3fhByZXGnL4%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=knqX2NcmTBwomh%2B8Xue98MkwdCcOSV2j3fhByZXGnL4%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%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Caa3571888ed1400841e408dba4e92648%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285093517171192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0cXt1OIvbubWjT2SFWBQpiIXuwAEuY9F4I6LdZoKotg%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.