Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 21:43:02 CDT 2023


Stephen, you are incorrect to assert that "John seems to expect
biogeography to be free of power struggles and other things which taint
science across the board." I see no basis for that. I have on occasion, and
on this list I think, noted that science is about suppression as well as
discovery of knowledge. But that fact does not mean that I cannot or should
not call out such instances of power struggles etc. any more or less than
anyone else.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 5:26 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Mike just gave us a classic example of cherry picking. His "logic" seems
> to be saying to John something like "your logic is exactly the same as
> those who dispute X and Y, everyone knows that those who dispute X and Y
> are wrong, so you are wrong".
> The problem, of course, is that X and Y may be selected from a pool of
> examples, many of which are in fact valid things to dispute.
> At any rate, John seems to expect biogeography to be free of power
> struggles and other things which taint science across the board. Dream on!
> Stephen
>     On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 06:34:30 am NZST, 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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BJRI0MtmU5QX5ZBaE1wAYR%2FNZLijQga1WcbK7hXbjwE%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qE9q1Y4G5ObHlIiH5T66t3UuWaxB6GEbtJW9qHAuMrk%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qE9q1Y4G5ObHlIiH5T66t3UuWaxB6GEbtJW9qHAuMrk%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o3k7PELL83A3zmxMZO8Nc5nMHMjpq4tUkaDKi0PCwzs%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G4bBlpKpqL761fn1WsJ7iymNhgQ9hrg9ScVK0oIOeJA%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G4bBlpKpqL761fn1WsJ7iymNhgQ9hrg9ScVK0oIOeJA%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263214942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WOp9yK54nkw5qC78Tq2mtyEqPTMgU25AFYzIj9%2FQi68%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>        <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>    <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXF7PkFXKnTvO1V%2FWdUGYohVo39HpEliTtsH%2FSX5C34%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%7C3f9550412b0b4c1ac43708dba5de42a7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286146263371994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u5vTLA3xWDjF7VOL7vE3KZwYDDf6dMQOUn7NY8RnQT4%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list