Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

[John Grehan]

Definitions are fine where accepted.  You say that my opinion has no value
as to the meaning of a criminal act. Fine. I am not asserting a criminal
act in the sense of the legal system. CODA is presented as something that
it is not - regardless of definitions. Interesting that you think one can
just 'make things up' in biogeography - exactly what CODA does :) Cheers,
John

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

> 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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VKVX8Erl8qc1zHzWjsBD8uOwwMRMI6HUviG8yQH6mdQ%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CVHfuXCSy4Tsoi4JLFaVnOV6E3xFj%2Bu4P7R%2FJAAAkdg%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VKVX8Erl8qc1zHzWjsBD8uOwwMRMI6HUviG8yQH6mdQ%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VKVX8Erl8qc1zHzWjsBD8uOwwMRMI6HUviG8yQH6mdQ%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IwyS0NKe5maNdydPPPp1WhCel85efegeIVQ8thWlblk%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IwyS0NKe5maNdydPPPp1WhCel85efegeIVQ8thWlblk%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IwyS0NKe5maNdydPPPp1WhCel85efegeIVQ8thWlblk%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%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%7Ca7574f0b23cb43a3f7d408dba4ede06a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285113821462046%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2PWUQl0RIlEk4S7aZSIR3OHxC%2BC%2BFB1Yyt1ESjfPZp4%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.