Taxacom: Science fraud - Nature
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 22:57:43 CDT 2023
Stephen - everyone who bothers to debate an issue can be said to 'just' be
having a rant. Real issue is not rant or not, but whether it's a good rant
or not (and in a sense, all scientific papers are 'just' rants).
As for "John may have chosen that term for rhetorical reasons", the answer
is no. I thought the term was a pretty good fit for a lot of what goes on
in biogeography.
Cheers, John
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 11:18 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> Mike,Of course definitions matter! My point was just that. I was pointing
> out that words have slightly different definitions in different contexts.
> John's posts to Taxacom are not a narrowly legal context, so the term
> fraudulent has a broader meaning, encompassing anything that isn't quite
> what it makes itself out to be. John may have chosen that term for
> rhetorical reasons, i.e. because it does easily slide to the legalistic
> crime interpretation of fraud, but, as he himself admits, he is just having
> a rant. Taxacom is therapy, for some!Stephen
> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 11:09:26 am NZST, Michael A. Ivie <
> mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong - my logic is that "that logic is exactly the same as those who
> dispute X and Y, which is that 'because I want my view to be accepted and
> other don't accept my view, I am aggrieved and call them names,'" which is
> in the same way that supporters of X and Y behave. Not cherry picking, it
> is pointing out that the scientific argument has failed to be convincing to
> some (most?) in the particular field, so the answer is to attack them as
> fraudulent, when the problem is the strength of the argument being too weak
> to attract adherents. Same as with climate deniers and Hoser.
>
> Strengthen the arguments, use only facts not opinions and attacks, and
> best practices will eventually win out. Not overnight, especially now that
> there is an adversarial situation worsened by personal attacks and use of
> criminal charges (definitions DO matter). Of course, there is always the
> chance (like with climate deniers) that the alternative arguments are just
> inherently weak, but that is the nature of argument.
>
>
> Mike
>
> On 8/25/2023 3:24 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
>
> **External Sender**
> 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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RU9hR5d7M0immS%2FSqSxxRIqamAL5Qq2S05xVBwvruDg%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fUpF8x%2FbILSHz%2BzIASBNFrHaxzUgRmhjLSHRUErFFe0%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fUpF8x%2FbILSHz%2BzIASBNFrHaxzUgRmhjLSHRUErFFe0%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fzwml539sJ1G0DvgnM0L8%2BtlzJitOod79es3m0V%2F13s%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kNVyVRsK845blTDU6uqYXqWkhO%2BgEJmmluaahUPuJ9s%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kNVyVRsK845blTDU6uqYXqWkhO%2BgEJmmluaahUPuJ9s%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087504700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Rq6Dx%2Fu9jlwBb4yU12noqNdA446LZVr21uj4d4zu1bs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z5UAZy167pzHfPzuLn18J0D%2BKFBtMcQD3WGTpXOdWc4%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%7Ccead0c575fb4461e372008dba5e8b1a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638286191087660923%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oRpBZ5%2BwRzYWUCw%2BTfLvt6HH9JwPtz7oIC1YlZKWQY%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list