Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 13:57:15 CDT 2023
Not sure it matters as to the same argument or not, but whether the
argument holds water (for panbiogeography). Anyway, nice to know some
specifics. Cheers, John
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:34 PM Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> You do realize that all of your charges and rants are exactly the same
> logic as those claimed by those who dispute climate change and Raymond
> Hoser?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 8/25/2023 10:35 AM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> > **External Sender**
> >
> > 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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lKyLmkTnB5Xpbs50hFB%2BlXuaWBcCl9bpGSEX381c%2FtA%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BtCI9TuQaCDJzHPR686DG%2B4D2goB6zlNiTH%2FGgCTzag%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BtCI9TuQaCDJzHPR686DG%2B4D2goB6zlNiTH%2FGgCTzag%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5JQMaQRUoszSJi1aLP%2BLseQkR6Gyj8iH%2B8IA1nvxFMw%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mmKRfwqIktTf%2F4E%2BlkS32ucE%2FVSr9Yg7rUNkc3005F8%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mmKRfwqIktTf%2F4E%2BlkS32ucE%2FVSr9Yg7rUNkc3005F8%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866819873684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PQ42t2d3YlkdSrKyxGZ30vCPh0uT843jqQfj%2BaXTgeI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TbyrJbyJvL4lZVtlWUnMlvngKAO0wyYdqFduWHS948c%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%7C75392ad92b33480923dd08dba59d3242%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285866820029893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=erjELNs4Oe2TUyWXMtgi1JS4CYtqkvGgUupmtmdG8mg%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list