Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 11:35:59 CDT 2023
Of course it's a 'rant', just like any other on this list, so no offense.
Funding - agreed, that is a pertinent issue. For panbiogeography this is
not only a problem where supporters of suppression and censorship are well
funded, but when a particular perspective dominates funding sources,
opposing research (panbiogeography) has no chance at all. I forgot to
include in earlier posting that suppression and censorship is supported by
at least one scientific institution - the Royal Society of New Zealand.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:00 AM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Tony,
> I'm not sure what John is on about either ... probably just another
> biogeographer rant (sorry John!)
> However, John does raise some valid general issues, but nobody seems to
> like to discuss these issues. One such issue concerns the notion of
> "fraud", but I'm framing it as a funding issue. Is it fraud for a project's
> merits to be misrepresented to funders by applicants, or is it simply
> "worth a shot?" If a funded project's merits are subsequently found to have
> been misrepresented in an accepted application, then should the funding be
> refunded? Do funders even care? Does anybody even care? These are,
> unfortunately, real issues.
> Cheers, Stephen
>
> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 04:43:53 pm NZST, Tony Rees <
> tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I am still confused as to the subject matter of your post. You 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.
> -------------------
>
> First of all, the journal involved is not Nature, so the title of the
> topic is misleading (as I already stated). Second, retracting a poor paper
> written by persons with no credentials in climate science, in a non-climate
> science journal, that makes large and unfounded claims regarding a
> particular aspect of climate science, is simply an indication of poor (or
> more likely, inappropriate) peer review, so does not seem to prove
> anything. Then you introduce something to do with the lab leak theory of
> COVID origin, which seems to indicate nothing as well, in addition to
> flying in the face of all published evidence. Then you claim that the use
> of CODA methods in biogeography are some sort of fraud, with some
> implication that views to the contrary are being suppressed, despite the
> fact that you have a paper already out in "Cladistics" in which such
> matters are apparently discussed (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1111%2Fcla.12537&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=43c1Eu2tineg3RuhBM9ktSoh06J7tgc0qf0Yh6o7VcM%3D&reserved=0). So
> what is the overall point of this thread, or can it simply be put to rest?
>
> Not wishing to be unhelpful here, just somewhat confused...
>
> 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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 10:03, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> I agree fully with Stephen about avoiding 'nefarious motivations', even
> though they might be true. My focus is on the use of methodologies that
> purport (functionally or operationally) one thing (empirical evidence) but
> are another (imagined evidence). As a rhetorical question, one might ask
> about papers by Waters and his cohort if they do not include consideration
> panbiogeographic evidence where pertinent given that they have
> publicly stated their support for suppression and censorship of
> panbiogeography. Having made their declaration it would seem absence would
> have to be intentional which raises the obvious inference. But I will
> refrain from characterizing it a fraud since without an explicit statement
> in each case one could really not know. On the other hand, other people
> have stated their deliberate intention of not citing or discussing
> panbiogeography, so in those cases their works would seem to be fraudulent.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 6:34 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > The term fraud does have a broader meaning in English, not restricted to
> > the legal definition. For example, it can be said of a person that he is
> a
> > fraud. If there is any ambiguity in contexts like the present one, then
> it
> > is perhaps best to use the phrase tantamount to fraud.
> >
> > Scientific studies and articles may in fact have an aspect of true legal
> > fraud, if their merits were misrepresented to the funder. However, the
> onus
> > might be on the funder to properly evaluate applications and reject any
> > misrepresentations/exaggerations. In practice though, all my experience
> > suggests that there are few effective safeguards here. Personally, I
> think
> > that if an article is retracted by the publisher, then the funder should
> > also be reimbursed for the waste of funding, but I suspect that doesn't
> > happen!
> >
> > Funding issues aside, there are plenty of scientific articles out there
> > that are simply of poor quality or just plain wrong (whether by
> > incompetence or by design). Peer review doesn't seem to be very effective
> > in practice. So, as with anything, one simply has to maintain a critical
> > attitude and, if something is seen to be wrong, try to publicly explain
> why
> > it is wrong. Rants probably just do more harm than good.
> >
> > So, John's opinion on the matter does matter, as much as anyone else's,
> > but he perhaps just needs to take a different approach and avoid
> ascribing
> > nefarious motivations, even though it might be true. Better to just
> > critique the content, rather than going down the rabbit hole of possible
> > motivations.
> >
> > Cheers, Stephen
> >
> > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 09:51:17 am NZST, Michael A. Ivie via
> Taxacom
> > <taxacom at lists.ku.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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yqbDJJ2svcnextFNgFGD3uCxRfkd4t5q1xZQCyN3ehQ%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yqbDJJ2svcnextFNgFGD3uCxRfkd4t5q1xZQCyN3ehQ%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bY6WYay9bxxu4uOVsJ80lyTDVaso7LgTZZ7BLA1ybZw%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v3zLpiEmLvt1rR51HoNVo7%2BDEyNIrUWKjIt8xnZBfco%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v3zLpiEmLvt1rR51HoNVo7%2BDEyNIrUWKjIt8xnZBfco%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057014699%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qNPomu4TSFF1VnZHnviz5BEPWV6RYour%2FJw7ml4Iyc0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%3D&reserved=0
> > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%3D&reserved=0
> > > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uAnMya%2B2MFj1kY7iSLsF%2BcXR28QL25UPuv3faAYrmts%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%7Ce14443462eff48e7788208dba58974b6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285782057170903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0CypLOBZiRoschtzLXF0vkG%2FS5MXysnEDRmyaF9MC0%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list