Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Thu Aug 24 16:50:50 CDT 2023


It does not matter that YOU consider it fraud, your opinion has no value 
as to the meaning of a criminal act, there is a definition of the word 
and crime, you don't just get to make things up.  You can do that in 
biogeography, and that is not fraud either.

Mike

On 8/24/2023 3:28 PM, John Grehan wrote:
>
> ***External Sender***
>
> 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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D6Kflci%2FU5viaKUYoPBmu2nRifO0mIbHxvTSnfGXtxo%3D&reserved=0
>>         <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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D6Kflci%2FU5viaKUYoPBmu2nRifO0mIbHxvTSnfGXtxo%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z2m2LmiV2xLODA2jELvuffsiCm8v5%2BR%2Brf7I70mU21w%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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 <mailto:to%3Ataxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>>         >>>>>>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe,
>>         visit:
>>         >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>>         <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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wNhj%2BC5BOnYaBBfzogrL%2FRrmsGFIR0ckWA7gx87t8q8%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wNhj%2BC5BOnYaBBfzogrL%2FRrmsGFIR0ckWA7gx87t8q8%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626096968%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLduaU89UMMyBh5guKyv2QEXJUQsZ37kE82l0JDgKSs%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 <mailto:to%3Ataxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>>         > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe,
>>         visit:https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>>         <https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom>
>>         > You can reach the person managing the list
>>         at:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>>         <mailto:at%3Ataxacom-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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=31pHMPeM31JsEFpWBjgcODv6d1b9M8QsEez7qntn3JQ%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=31pHMPeM31JsEFpWBjgcODv6d1b9M8QsEez7qntn3JQ%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
>>         <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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=31pHMPeM31JsEFpWBjgcODv6d1b9M8QsEez7qntn3JQ%3D&reserved=0
>>         <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=31pHMPeM31JsEFpWBjgcODv6d1b9M8QsEez7qntn3JQ%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WfT1FglRz2V9h1xE%2FD69iR7CiHIUtABxTSPd2%2Bl9q%2Fo%3D&reserved=0
>>     <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WfT1FglRz2V9h1xE%2FD69iR7CiHIUtABxTSPd2%2Bl9q%2Fo%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%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WfT1FglRz2V9h1xE%2FD69iR7CiHIUtABxTSPd2%2Bl9q%2Fo%3D&reserved=0 
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cbebce96868494f39f61c08dba4ec33ec%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285106626253202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WfT1FglRz2V9h1xE%2FD69iR7CiHIUtABxTSPd2%2Bl9q%2Fo%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  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list