Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 13:59:23 CDT 2023
Tony - which meaning of plausible? Presume the first, but with multiple
meanings possible I thought worth checking with you.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.
2. Persuasive or ingratiating, especially in an effort to deceive.
3. Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:35 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK John, thanks for the clarification. In any case your proposed "tectonic
> correlations" with historic biogeographic events seem perfectly plausible
> to me.
>
> 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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:37, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w5EV%2FumLm5oRceNsWACk9OvCQhS9zhrIjxDGZoh9QQI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z0furu6NrQAIUee6dgLEoSXuCVUIQyCFE9jFo0bHMC8%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z0furu6NrQAIUee6dgLEoSXuCVUIQyCFE9jFo0bHMC8%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cSEcmo1v%2FwbcXQvaLplTDnD7%2BsD1fQB8ktkesDSQHuE%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tjykWD8R45H%2FYNESZz5DmgkTywsFpgrUtuZPQeyExWU%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tjykWD8R45H%2FYNESZz5DmgkTywsFpgrUtuZPQeyExWU%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079830309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=velKMqdGXRPT%2BMYXCWOa%2Bsremr9b%2BvtcSUvgcDEHF7c%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%3D&reserved=0
>> > > > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRkxW2ISgp2f3rqA%2FRdHih63Lt4CPadDIc1UfFaWmFI%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%7Ca42adc82246c45d8e90208dba59d7d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638285868079986525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pwsaQAzj1Gn8cK4PjaPg4wFckqq1Ch6RNNS7pPkogLg%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list