Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Thu Aug 31 12:09:15 CDT 2023

> My personal view on this situation is to
> simply chose a justifiable interpretation of the Code and run with it.

I always advocate that, when there is obvious doubt or acknowledged ambiguity in the Code, one should always err on the side of "assuming it's available unless there is a clear and explicit reason why it fails to fulfill some criterion of the Code".  This isn't perfect, of course, because in some cases a provision of the Code can be seen as unambiguous by some, but ambiguous by others.  However, if the majority of such cases, at least most people agree that there is some sort of ambiguity in the Code.  So, I think nomenclatural stability is best served if, when there are provisions of the Code that can be legitimately interpreted in more than one way, the default interpretation is the one that accepts the name as available.

I see two justifications for this:  First, generally, having a consistent interpretation of such ambiguous cases improves stability because everyone leans the same direction in cases of doubt.  Otherwise, we see the Code wielded as a weapon of sorts where any taxonomist can choose to regard a name as available or not available however they choose.  I've seen situations where people go out of their way to find some sort of very strict and narrow interpretation of some provision of the Code offers to justify treating a name as unavailable (e.g., because the associated taxonomy was bad, or there is a personal/political objection to the author, or because they got "scooped" on a name and want to force the name with higher priority to be unavailable by sheer force of will).  I know it sounds heretical, but whether the accompanying taxonomy associated with a proposed new name or other nomenclatural act is "good" or "bad" has absolutely zero impact on whether or not the name or act should be treated as available in the sense of the Code.  I could describe two new species of the genus Homo, one selecting myself as the name-bearing type, and another selecting my daughter as the name-bearing type, and as long as I fulfill the requirements of the Code when proposing these two names, the names should be regarded as available regardless of how horrifically bad the taxonomy is.  In summary, when there is "wiggle room" in interpreting the Code, it serves nomenclatural stability if everyone leans in the same direction within that wiggle-room space.

The second justification, specific to the "liberal" lean for erring on the side of "assume available unless unambiguously not" (rather than the other direction), is because the vast majority of biologists (and probably most taxonomists even) are not "Code Warriors".  As such, when they see the description of a new species, they will by default interpret it as being available.  Obviously, if a name is explicitly not available, taxonomists should make this clear and the name should not compete with other names for priority.  But in cases of ambiguous interpretation of the Code, the majority of biologists will assume it's available by default, and taxonomists should consistently do likewise.

The alternative is that every taxonomist follows their own personal biases on a case-by-case basis in deciding which way to fall when a name legitimately could be considered either available or unavailable.  With the heterogeny of opinions and perspectives (not to mention feuds and other forms of animus) widely represented among taxonomists, this approach would definitely not favor nomenclatural stability.

Case in point with Article 15.1, the Code Glossary defines "conditional" (in part) as:

conditional, a.
(1) Of the proposal of a name or a type fixation: one made with stated reservations

So, can we interpret Sharkey et al.'s acknowledgement that some of their new names might represent taxa for which names had previously been proposed as "stated reservations" that apply to every single new name they proposed?  One interpretation of the Code is "yes" -- that is, by simply stating that "few synonyms will be generated in our current effort which does not attempt to match his names with Costa Rican specimens", these authors acknowledge that at least some of their names might represent junior synonyms; therefore every name that proposed should be regarded as "conditionally proposed".  Another legitimate interpretation of the Code is "no", because they did not explicitly state any reservations about any particular name, so none of the names were proposed conditionally.  Personally, I think the latter interpretation is more consistent with the intention of Art 15.1 (i.e., an that explicit statement of reservations is necessary to fall afoul of that Article); but I also acknowledge that "reasonable people would disagree" on how to apply this particular provision to this particular work.  As long as there is legitimate ambiguity, my recommendation would be to err on the side of "treat the names as available".

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:33 PM
> To: Marco Uliana <marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Carlos Alberto Martínez
> Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
> 
>  Hi Marco,A very good point indeed. It highlights the practical ambiguities of
> the Code. I would say that it is completely justified to consider Sharkey et
> al.'s new species as having been conditionally proposed, but, unfortunately,
> one could also be justified in interpreting things differently. This leads to
> division in interpretation of the Code. My personal view on this situation is to
> simply chose a justifiable interpretation of the Code and run with it. Different
> people will run with different interpretations, but I can live with that.Cheers,
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 07:56:00 pm NZST, Marco Uliana
> <marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Unless I missed some of your messages, I think the following perspective was
> not yet explored:
> 
> Are names introduced by Sharkey are compliant with the following?
> ICZN 15.1. Conditional proposal
> A new name or nomenclatural act proposed conditionally and published
> after 1960 is not thereby made available. [...]
> 
> Saying "few synonyms will be generated in our current effort which does not
> attempt to match his names with Costa Rican specimens" (other similar
> arguments are found in the text) isn't quite the same as saying "we don't
> really know if any of these taxa is new*, or which ones are. But, based on
> statistics, we believe that at least some are new, and for those that will be
> verified new, this is how they should be called".
> 
> *note that 900 species of Mesochorus are described.
> If not, what is the difference? i.e., isn't this a conditional proposal, similar to
> "A" being accepted as a "word" for adenine (and I agree with this)?Hopefully
> we don't expect conditional proposals  to be introduced like "This is a
> conditional proposal of a new taxon", "We conditionally propose this name",
> or similar.
> 
> Marco
> ᐧ
> Il giorno gio 31 ago 2023 alle ore 01:17 Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> ha scritto:
> 
>  I suggest that we take a step back and remind ourselves of the basics:
> Diagnosis versus description:
> A diagnosis is supposed to allow us to distinguish the new species from
> *known* relatives.
> A description is supposed to also allow us to distinguish the new species from
> any yet to be discovered new species, which may also equally fit the
> diagnosis.
> Example: Suppose genus Aus is currently monotypic. The species Aus bus has
> green legs. Then a new species is discovered, Auc cus, which has brown legs.
> The diagnosis for Aus cus need only mention that it has brown legs, but,
> further down the track, Aus dus might be discovered, also with brown legs,
> but with other differences. So, the description (but not the diagnosis) for Aus
> cus should try to mention all characters which might be relevant down the
> track.
> Comparison with previously described species: The proposal of a new
> species should exclude the possibility that it has already been described. This
> is not crucial, since we can just synonymise to fix it, but it is very bad
> taxonomic practice to disregard this guideline!
> One potential problem with DNA only descriptions is that it fails to rule out
> whether the species has already been described morphologically, unless you
> can check the DNA of all previously described relatives. In practice, this is
> very hard to achieve.
> One potential big advantage of DNA only descriptions is that it theoretically
> provides an easy full description for the species, to the point where you don't
> need diagnoses any more. You just compare the sequences and if the
> difference is above a certain threshold, then they are deemed to be different
> species. However, I'm not convinced that it really works out so neatly in
> practice and it does have some disadvantages. You've got the comparison
> problem to earlier morphologically described species that I mentioned
> above. You also need the facilities to do sequence analysis and it doesn't help
> for recognising species in the field in order to observe their natural history in
> a nondestructive way.
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 12:09:41 am NZST, Carlos Alberto Martínez
> Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
>  I am glad that the logical fallacies in that paper are already being pointed
> out. Thank you, Marco. You will definitely find more.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:02 PM Marco Uliana
> <marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all, I have been reading this group for a long time, but I think
> > this is my first message.
> > Greetings to everyone.
> >
> > The new Sharkey paper is available from here
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevistas.ucr.ac.cr%2Findex.php%2Frbt%2Fissue%2Fview%2F3352&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214406211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bI6TU2dozssIkQYpNuCfRFkqwH5ACtNlmcBTJ2Nra4s%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > A decent proxy for their working method could perhaps be:
> > *As it was really hard for us to cope with the 245 species of
> > neotropical Nesochorus already described/treated by Dasch (1974), we
> > decided it would have been easier for us to go our own way and start again
> from zero*.
> > In the same way I suppose that, shall one find some problems with
> > these COI-based diagnosis (e.g.: ambiguous, mismatching morphology,
> > out of reach, obsolete against genomic based diagnosis, just too
> > boring...), he can as well ignore Sharkey et al. 2023, and restart
> > taxonomy and nomenclature once more.
> >
> > Also, I think that arguments like this are difficult to comment on:
> > *Many of the characters in Dasch’s key use jargon that only a few
> > entomologists know. * *For example, few of the general population
> > understand the terms postpetiole and frons (Fig. 3). * *The key is
> > almost impossible for professional taxonomists, and it is in an alien
> > language for the vast majority of potential users.*
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is the right way to proceed...
> >
> > Marco Uliana
> > Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia, Italy ᐧ ᐧ
> >
> > Il giorno mer 30 ago 2023 alle ore 11:38 Roderic Page via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ha scritto:
> >
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> I’m reminded of Charles Godfrey’s wonderful essay "Taxonomy as
> >> Information Science” https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiostor.org%2Freference%2F250587&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214406211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LvNhhUzH4GOD6%2FsCUO9Oz5XAYT%2BmSxdZWGlVK0y63qw%3D&reserved=0 where he
> >> writes (p. 174):
> >> A depressing amount of entomological taxonomy, especially in Europe,
> >> consists of long and lengthy discussions of this type of taxonomic
> >> book-keeping (to avoid this, some of the best taxonomists I know work
> >> only in the tropics where they can be biologists rather than archivists).
> >> I think the paper "Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst...”
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevistas.ucr.ac.cr%2Findex.php%2Frbt%2Farticle%2Fview%2F56316&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214406211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fLYKkZBK7E91h0YiE9dcw%2BSbBZfqZ%2FSheD8kczYRIeI%3D&reserved=0 (the DOI
> >> doesn’t seem to be registered yet) makes a reasoned case for “ignoring"
> >> earlier work.
> >>
> >> By my reading the authors are simply saying that creating 2-3
> >> synonyms for 10 existing names is a small price to pay for being able
> >> to document the other species in the large genus in a biologically rich
> region.
> >>
> >> It is a long time since I’ve done actual taxonomy, but I’m sure many
> >> researchers are faced with names they can’t place, descriptions that
> >> are nearly useless, specimens that are missing (or type series that
> >> comprise multiple taxa). At some point we make a judgement call about
> >> whether we invest time in resolving this, or put them to one side in
> >> the hope that perhaps we can resolve it later (do we want to be
> >> biologists or archivists?).
> >>
> >> The authors point out that sequencing the Dasch types (if feasible)
> >> would be one way to discover whether there are synonyms.
> >>
> >> Your statement that “all is set to completely overwrite the current
> >> morphological system and names” seems hyperbolic at best. We are in
> >> an interesting time where new technologies present new opportunities
> >> (and challenges), and we are figuring out how best to proceed (as we
> >> do every time new technologies come along and force us to rethink
> things).
> >>
> >> Personally I’m going to re-read Charles’ essay, and ponder how this
> >> debate (and others in our field) address his assessment (p. 172) that:
> >> What matters is not only how interesting the question is, the
> >> potential extra science that the research may leverage, but how
> >> capable the subject is of delivering useful output. I think taxonomy
> >> is suffering not because it is any less interesting or important than
> >> it was fifty years, but because it is largely failing to deliver.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> Roderic Page
> >> Professor of Taxonomy
> >> School of Biodiversity, One Health, & Veterinary Medicine College of
> >> Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University
> >> of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> >>
> >> Email: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> >> LinkedIn: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214406211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fsKaHuDpU1Tk7gVMkkT7yUbxJamOg7B8sZfYCdcVL%2FY%3D&reserved=0
> >> Twitter: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frdmpage&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214406211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dXkAp%2BJWtCmy0Q%2Fz3PkNhJhGI73kSHFJa7LVxFeF%2Fpc%3D&reserved=0
> >> Telegram: rdmpage
> >> Blog: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fiphylo.blogspot.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6sK%2Btg2Xs%2FZIs291JmrRSqe%2FCzoddP1Ol5FojmcpgBA%3D&reserved=0
> >> ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-7101-9767&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xRUPhQmkEmspN1ogcuQL3erjBwXTHdmmVXDSJWnkeyg%3D&reserved=0
> >> Citations:
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fcitations%3Fhl%3Den%26user%3D4Z5WABAAAAAJ&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z%2BdnU%2F3C%2FFVCna%2Bp77Cs2Kw1H9U3l2jiarYBuYSv4pE%3D&reserved=0
> >> ResearchGate https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FRoderic_Page&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BaGwUgC9PpU%2FWWUaHWH4%2BRlqdOZHgDUu4wUqkw9pVG0%3D&reserved=0
> >> On 30 Aug 2023 at 09:11 +0100, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via
> >> Taxacom < taxacom at lists.ku.edu>, wrote:
> >> Dear Taxacomers,
> >> For your enjoyment, here is the latest episode of the Meierotto *et
> >> al.*
> >> (2019) saga, published six days ago, on August 24, 2023:
> >> Sharkey *et al*. (2023): Minimalist revision of *Mesochorus*
> >> Gravenhorst,
> >> 1829 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Mesochorinae) from Área de
> >> Conservación Guanacaste, Costa Rica, with 158 new species and host
> >> records for 129 species. *Revista de Biología Tropical*, 71 (S2): 1-174.
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.15517%2Frev.biol.trop..v71iS2.2023&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rVIJ5Os3pTYsQ5zVcGf0rpVlWcs3xCxvoP8TYD8hz3I%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> You will enjoy reading through the logical fallacies in the introduction.
> >> But more importantly, this paper contains what I told you and warned
> >> you would happen, since the Meierotto *et al.* (2019) paper, if you
> >> failed to act swiftly and properly. Now it is here. Read:
> >> "Dasch (1974) treated a very small proportion of ACG *Mesochorus*
> >> species, therefore few synonyms will be generated in our current
> >> effort which does not attempt to match his names with Costa Rican
> specimens."
> >> There you have a primarily morphological system finally openly
> >> hijacked by a parallel taxonomic system which wants to use the naming
> >> rules of the current system for convenience.
> >> "In other words, it is likely that we are generating two or three
> >> synonyms
> >> (0.23 x 10) of these Dasch species."
> >> So, a complete disregard for priority and open acceptance of synonym
> >> creation, as I warned four years ago. When things like this can go
> >> through and get published, even when they threaten universality and
> >> stability, then you realize that we don't need a ZooCode anymore.
> >> Given that the authors, reviewers, and editor accepted 23% synonym
> >> creation as good, then all is set to completely overwrite the current
> >> morphological system and names, as the 2 million species described
> >> versus 10 million species estimate is just 20%. If we estimate a
> >> total of 80 or 100 million species, then creating 2 million synonyms
> >> for the existing names goes down to a "negligible" 2% synonymy
> >> threshold. Completely acceptable, isn't it?
> >>
> >> To the commissioners who have tolerated this, because of their
> >> conflict of values (not of interest) based on the incorrect
> >> assumption that species need scientific names to be assessed and
> >> protected: anyone that has read through the IUCN Red List methodology
> >> knows that this is not true, and there are countries with legislation
> >> in place to protect species even if they don't have scientific names. You
> better update yourselves.
> >>
> >> By the way, at least one of the species has two original spellings,
> >> *Mesochorus
> >> dotres* (which should be declared an incorrect original spelling) and
> >> *Mesochorus
> >> dostres* (the supposedly correct spelling).
> >>
> >> Now I will just sit here and contemplate the devastation.
> >>
> >> Am I forgetting to emphasise something? Ah, yes: "I told you".
> >>
> >> Yours in horror,
> >> Carlos Martínez
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oUurPTi0d7Y3QaejbHJ4D%2BOfFGFCjZJkMS1MvgEc5eU%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%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oUurPTi0d7Y3QaejbHJ4D%2BOfFGFCjZJkMS1MvgEc5eU%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%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oUurPTi0d7Y3QaejbHJ4D%2BOfFGFCjZJkMS1MvgEc5eU%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%7C4eb9eea38b1a44e6108008dbaa450792%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638290988214562491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oUurPTi0d7Y3QaejbHJ4D%2BOfFGFCjZJkMS1MvgEc5eU%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.