[Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline

Al Newton anewton at fieldmuseum.org
Wed Feb 2 22:07:30 CST 2011


Just to throw a few more numbers out there, the beetle group
Staphyliniformia (suborder Polyphaga, about a dozen families, terrestrial
and freshwater, about 1/6 of all Coleoptera):

Average new genera per year, 2000-2009:  49.7
Average new species per year, 2000-2009:  874
Ratio new species / new genus, 2000-2009:  17.6

Total valid genera worldwide, end 2010:  4,794
Total valid species worldwide, end 2010:  71,733
Ratio species / genus:  15.0*

*Note:  There are some huge genera in this group, e.g.:
Euconnus 2494 spp.
Stenus 2332 spp.
Atheta 1700 spp.
Philonthus 1220 spp.

Above numbers based on a world database, current through end 2010 (being
prepared for web access)

Al.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> John,
> It is always risky to generalise from one group to the whole lot, which
> seems to
> be what you are doing. It is worth clarifying that I didn't say that most
> undescribed taxa were marine, just that, in this country at least, there is
> now
> more marine taxonomic activity going on than terrestrial, but I guess it
> may
> also be risky to generalise from one's own country! If one were to estimate
> new
> taxa per annum from the no. per annum in N.Z., suitably multiplied, the
> result
> would be nowhere near 18000! Note that we are 1/12 of the way through 2011
> already (!), so there should already be over 1000 new taxa by your
> reckoning*!
> It is hard to know, but I doubt it ...
> Stephen
> *OK, so publication frequency is probably low in January, but still ...
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; tillier at mnhn.fr; Anthony
> Gill
> <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Mon, 31 January, 2011 10:52:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
>
> Stephen,
>
> Why expect "nonmarine new species to be less than or maybe
> equal to marine ones"?
>
> The figure of 18,000+ new species per year is almost certainly correct,
> perhaps
> even conservative. Most new taxa would be insects.
>
> Currently in Chalcidoidea (a group of insects) have about 25,000 valid
> species.
> The average number of species described over the past five years is about
> 300
> per year. Insects currently include about 1.5m valid species. Thus, if new
> species in all groups of insects were to be described at the same rate we
> would
> have 18000 new species of insects described each year. You could argue that
> as
> Chalcidoidea are amongst the most poorly known groups and therefore there
> is a
> higher proportion of new species to be described (we estimate that less
> than 5%
> of all species have been described to date) then the figure is skewed.
> However,
> consider that there an incredibly small number of taxonomists working on
> this
> potentially huge group (perhaps fewer than 15 taxonomists in the world
> describing reasonable numbers of species each) and therefore the total
> number of
> new species they could describe per year between them is probably limited
> to
> about 300. In most groups of insects (e.g. Coleoptera or Lepidoptera) there
> are
> probably hundreds of taxonomists for each similar sized group. Taking this
> all
> into account, the figure of 18000 species of animals described each year
> seems
> pretty reasonable to me.
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Entomology
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
> chalcidoids
> and more):
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/chalcidoids/
> or
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids
>
> Interactive catalogue and biological database of World Chalcidoidea on
> CD:
> Contact the publisher: DickyS._Yu at telus.net, or Dicky S. Yu, P.O.Box
> 48205,
> Bentall Centre, Vancouver B.C., V7X 1N8, CANADA; see also www.taxapad.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: 28 January 2011 22:00
> To: tillier at mnhn.fr; Anthony Gill
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
>
> >Regarding marine taxa, in 2002-2003 the average number of new species per
> year
> >is 1635
>
> If true, this strongly supports my view that an 18000 overall new taxa for
> 2008
> is ludicrous! I would expect nonmarine new species to be less than or maybe
> equal to marine ones, which would result in c. 15000 new supraspecific
> names in
> 2008!!
>
> what is going on here?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Simon TILLIER <tillier at mnhn.fr>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Anthony Gill
> <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 9:22:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
>
> Regarding marine taxa, in 2002-2003 the average number of new species per
> year is 1635. Not a black box, this has been documented (with numbers and
> affiliations of authors) by Philippe Bouchet in chapter 2 ("Magnitude of
> Marine Biodiversity") of: Carlos M. Duarte (ed.), The Exploration of Marine
> Biodiversity - Scientific and Technological Challenges. Fundación BBVA,
> 2006.
>
> I think that he has done the exercise again recently (for the CoML final
> meeting?) and that the rate does not change but marginally (I cannot check
> with him presently, he is not in Paris).
>
> Simon Tillier
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] De la part de Stephen Thorpe
> > Envoyé : vendredi 28 janvier 2011 05:25
> > À : Anthony Gill
> > Cc : taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Objet : Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> >
> > interesting ... seems to be a lot of "black boxes" in the methodology
> here, and
> > very hard to independently verify or falsify whatever numbers SOS throws
> at us
> > ...
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> > To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> > Cc: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; g.read at niwa.co.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 5:16:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> >
> > The numbers are similar to ones for previous years, so if there is
> > some sort of inflation going on, then it is a constant. The data was
> > usually provided as numbers of new species for each higher taxon. (The
> > first year, I asked Zoological Record for a breakdon by animal
> > families, but that proved an awful lot of work to make sense of!). I'm
> > not sure of how the providers came up with the numbers, so I guess
> > there is chance that there is some inflation. My gut feeling however
> > is that the numbers are conservative, because - owing to the lag in
> > capturing new species descriptions - numbers for a given year
> > continued to rise after the SOS 1 April cutoff date. (At least this
> > was the case for IPNI data i checked one year.)
> >
> > If you are interested, it might be worth checking, say, the Zoological
> > Records data against another source. One possible option might be
> > Catalog of Fishes. (If so, bear in mind that Catalog of Fishes only
> > tracks Recent fishes, so you would have to make sure you excluded
> > Fossil taxa from the Zoo Records data.)
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Thorpe
> > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > > thanks for that, Tony
> > >
> > > I'm not at all worried about "complete accuracy", but only about "ball
> park
> > > figures", and 18000+ for 2008 seems just way too high to me, but this
> is
> > > based on little more than "gut feeling"
> > > the "sources", as such, are not really the issue, but rather how the
> data
> > > was extracted and manipulated, and that I don't know
> > >
> > > do you think it possible that the number quoted for 2008 could somehow
>  be,
> > > say, twice as much as the actual figure??
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> > > To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> > > Cc: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; g.read at niwa.co.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 4:54:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >
> > > I was behind pulling together SOS numbers for the first couple of
> > > years for the International Institute for Species Exploration at ASU.
> > > The sources (partner organisations) are documented in the SOS reports,
> > > and include Zoological Record, International Journal of Systematic and
> > > Evolutionary Microbiology, and International Plant Names Index.
> > > However, the counts are never going to be completely accurate as the
> > > data providers could only provide a time slice of the data as it came
> > > in; for the bulk of groups, new species descriptions are scattered
> > > across a huge number of journals and books. This is one reason why the
> > > report is released a year behind the "Top 10" competition (i.e., 2008
> > > SOS numbers were released in 2010, but the Top 10 for that year was
> > > for 2009 new species).
> > >
> > > I don't think too much attention should be paid to the total numbers
> > > of species listed in the SOS reports, however.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Stephen Thorpe
> > > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > >> Tony, Geoff,
> > >> I think that you are missing the crucial point, which is that we don't
> > >> know
> > >> *exactly how* these numbers were calculated (I haven't yet read
> through
> > >> all the
> > >> SOS documentation, however). The numbers seem well o.t.t. to me, so I
> urge
> > >> caution until we know *exactly how* they were calculated ...
> > >> Stephen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> > >> To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; neale at bishopmuseum.org;
> tillier at mnhn.fr;
> > >> mesibov at southcom.com.au; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > >> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >> Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 4:00:50 PM
> > >> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Stephen, all,
> > >>
> > >> The numbers quoted earlier do not come from GNI, but from here:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.species.asu.edu/SOS
> > >>
> > >> where they are compiled from a range of reputable sources, all cited I
> > >> think.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers - Tony
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > >>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> > >>> Sent: Friday, 28 January 2011 1:58 PM
> > >>> To: Neal Evenhuis; tillier at mnhn.fr; Bob Mesibov; Richard Pyle
> > >>> Cc: taxacom
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >>>
> > >>> >Therefore, GNI is not really the place to see how many new species
> were
> > >>> proposed
> > >>> >in a given year
> > >>>
> > >>> yes, but someone might try to use it for that, so we need to beware
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think that there is a place to see how many new species were
> > >>> proposed in
> > >>> a given year! Isn't that one of the things biodiversity informatics
> is
> > >>> (slowly)
> > >>> working towards??
> > >>>
> > >>> so, I think we should be *highly cautious* about any claimed numbers
> ...
> > >>> I
> > >>> still
> > >>> think 18000 is an order of magnitude too high for 2008 ... but how
> can
> I
> > >>> check?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> > >>> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "tillier at mnhn.fr"
> > >>> <tillier at mnhn.fr>; Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>; Richard
> Pyle
> > >>> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > >>> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >>> Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 3:52:38 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >>>
> > >>> GNI actually pulls up ALL records of a name -- misspellings,
> subsequent
> > >>> usage,
> > >>> etc.!
> > >>>
> > >>> Searching back to 2001 you get totals varying from 24079 (for 2008)
> to
> > >>> 114252
> > >>> (for 2004!) -- click on some of the names and you will see it
> whenever
> a
> > >>> name
> > >>> has been listed in a publication. Therefore, GNI is not really the
> place
> > >>> to see
> > >>> how many new species were proposed in a given year.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Neal
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1/27/11 4:30 PM, "Stephen Thorpe"
> > >>> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
> > scribbled
> > >>> the
> > >>> following tidbit:
> > >>>
> > >>> maybe that figure of 18225 is OK ... hard to say, but one needs to be
> > >>> careful
> > >>> a search for 2008 on Global Names Index pulls up 24079 records
> (including
> > >>> new
> > >>> genera etc., as well as new species)
> > >>> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings?search_term=2008
> > >>> *but* just looking at the first page of 803 reveals 7 repeats based
> on
> > >>> minor
> > >>> citation variants (comma absent or present, authors in full or et
> al.,
> > >>> etc.)
> > >>> so, the number could be well astray quite easily ...
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> From: Neal Evenhuis
> > >>> <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
> > >>> To: "tillier at mnhn.fr<mailto:tillier at mnhn.fr>"
> > >>> <tillier at mnhn.fr<mailto:tillier at mnhn.fr>>; Bob Mesibov
> > >>> <mesibov at southcom.com.au<mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au>>; Richard
> > Pyle
> > >>> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> > >>> Cc: taxacom
> > >>> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> > >>> Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 1:29:05 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >>>
> > >>> Figures can always be misleading.
> > >>>
> > >>> Without doing too much calculation and re-examination of all the
> > >>> parameters
> > >>> given below, let's just look at one:
> > >>>
> > >>> 18225 species described;
> > >>> 50 species per year per taxonomist;
> > >>> = 346 taxonomists doing all the work!
> > >>> I doubt it. Especially since Philippe says 600 are doing Mollusca
> work
> > >>> alone...
> > >>>
> > >>> Some of the figures given below are confounded by many real-life
> > >>> situations not
> > >>> taken into account:
> > >>> 1. many co-authors on papers describing species
> > >>> 2. students and retired professionals getting little or no pay
> > >>>
> > >>> A recalculation given many more complexities and realistic parameters
> of
> > >>> species
> > >>> being described should show that very little funding goes to taxonomy
> as
> > >>> compared to systematics.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Neal
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1/26/11 11:53 PM, "Simon TILLIER"
> > >>>
> > >>>
> <tillier at mnhn.fr<mailto:tillier at mnhn.fr><mailto:tillier at mnhn.fr<mailto:til
> > >>> lier at mnhn.fr>>>
> > >>>  scribbled the following tidbit:
> > >>>
> > >>> Some elements in support to Rich's (unpopular) position:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.  18225 new species have been described in 2008 (source = State of
> > >>> Observed Species 2010). This rate of description has existed for more
> > >>> than
> > >>> two decades now (source = Philippe Bouchet), and is far higher than
> ever
> > >>> before since Linnaeus times;
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. New species are being described by more authors than ever, which
> is
> > >>> obviously in contradiction with the idea of extinction of
> taxonomists:
> > >>> for
> > >>> new Mollusc species, from ca 150 authors since 1930 to 1960, to 400+
> in
> > >>> 2000
> > >>> and 600+ in 2008 (source = Philippe Bouchet)
> > >>>
> > >>> 3. The GBIF budget was 2.6 million euros in 2009. A rough calculation
> of
> > >>> the
> > >>> cost of a new species description may be as follows:
> > >>> - a taxonomist full salary cost may be approximately 60000 euros /
> year;
> > >>> - he/she may describe at least 50 new species per year (much more in
> some
> > >>> taxa), working full time at species description;
> > >>> - so a new species description costs ca 1200 euros;
> > >>> - the collection, infrastructure and publication costs may double
> this
> > >>> amount, lets accept 2500 euros / species description;
> > >>> - then ca 45,5 million euros  are spent yearly to describe 18225
> species,
> > >>> ie
> > >>> 20 times the GBIF budget and probably ca 10 times the cost of all
> > >>> database
> > >>> initiatives. The ratio would still be very much higher if we took
> into
> > >>> consideration the capital immobilized in both cases (real estate,
> etc).
> > >>> Spending the GBIF budget on species description would allow an
> increase
> > >>> in
> > >>> description rate of  5-6%, which may well be less than the benefit
> > >>> resulting
> > >>> from direct access to a lot of information which is physically
> fragmented
> > >>> in
> > >>> places too numerous to allow easy access by more  than very few
> > >>> privileged
> > >>> professionals.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, and unless these rational figures are rationally demonstrated to
> be
> > >>> false, taxonomists are not endangered and the cost of databases is
> > >>> trivial,
> > >>> even if the quality and quantity of the information accessible
> obviously
> > >>> need improvement.
> > >>>
> > >>> I see actually two problems: the first is understanding why we
> perceive
> > >>> taxonomists as endangered when objective observations indicate that
> this
> > >>> is
> > >>> not the case, at least in a first approach; and the second problem is
> how
> > >>> we
> > >>> can address the absence of any knowledge on something like 50 - 100%
> of
> > >>> all
> > >>> living species.
> > >>>
> > >>> Simon Tillier
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Message d'origine-----
> > >>> De :
> > >>> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-
> > >>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-
> > >>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> > >>>  [mailto:taxacom-
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:bo
> > unc
> > >>> es at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>]
> > >>>  De la part de Bob Mesibov
> > >>> Envoyé : jeudi 27 janvier 2011 00:34
> > >>> À : Richard Pyle
> > >>> Cc : TAXACOM
> > >>> Objet : Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline
> > >>> Hi, Rich.
> > >>> I think your lack of food may have affected your lines of argument
> :-)
> > >>> Pyle: "First of all, it's wrong."
> > >>> Whether existing taxonomists think the databasing efforts are good or
> not
> > >>> isn't
> > >>> relevant. The author of the Wired article is Craig McLain, assistant
> > >>> director of
> > >>> science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and like you,
> a
> > >>> keen marine
> > >>> expeditioner. McLain doesn't knock databasing. He says: 'Thankfully
> (my
> > >>> own
> > >>> research has relied upon them), thousands of hours and millions of
> > >>> dollars
> > >>> have
> > >>> been spent on these initiatives. However, many of these programs did
> not
> > >>> financially support taxonomists generating the data these databases
> > >>> required.'
> > >>> Pyle: "Second of all, the amount of money spent on all database
> efforts
> > >>> combined
> > >>> is *trivial* compared to what is needed to correct the problem."
> > >>> Ah, the old 'drop in the bucket' argument from Tom Wolfe's 'Mau
> Mauing
> > >>> the
> > >>> Flak
> > >>> Catchers'. Correcting the problem might take millions, who knows?
> It's
> a
> > >>> fluid
> > >>> estimate. Take some real figures: in 2010-11, of the 4 of the 9
> taxonomy
> > >>> grants
> > >>> from the Australian Biological Resources Study (the Federal taxonomy
> > >>> honeypot) to
> > >>> professional taxonomists were for AUD$10000 *over 3 years*. That
> really
> > >>> is
> > >>> trivial.
> > >>> How much does one EOL Biodiversity Synthesis Meeting cost?
> > >>> Pyle: "Third, in most cases that money has not come from a source
> that
> > >>> would have
> > >>> been available to taxonomists anyway."
> > >>> Which is McLain's point, and lots of other people's. That source damn
> > >>> well
> > >>> *should*
> > >>> have been funding the taxonomists. And here again one of my favourite
> > >>> quotes,
> > >>> from former EOL head James Edwards: "We have not given enough thought
> to
> > >>> the
> > >>> people who provide the information on which the Encyclopedia of Life
> is
> > >>> built," Dr.
> > >>> Edwards acknowledged. "We are looking into ways to keep that
> community
> > >>> going."
> > >>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/science/26ency.html?_r=3)
> > >>> Pyle: "Fourth, the entire argument is a Red Herring, because the real
> > >>> problem with
> > >>> misdirected funds is more dollars spent doing lab-based taxonomy, and
> > >>> less
> > >>> dollars
> > >>> spent doing field-based taxonomy."
> > >>> You probably need to clarify that a bit more. I think it's still true
> > >>> that
> > >>> most new
> > >>> species are 'discovered' in museums and herbaria.
> > >>> --
> > >>> Dr Robert Mesibov
> > >>> Honorary Research Associate
> > >>> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> > >>> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> > >>> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> > >>> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> > >>> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:
> > Taxac
> > >>> om at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> > >>>
> > >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > >>> these
> > >>> methods:
> > >>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> > >>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > >>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > >>> your search terms here
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>
> > >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:
> > Taxac
> > >>> om at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> > >>>
> > >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >>>
> > >>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > >>> these
> > >>> methods:
> > >>>
> > >>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> > >>>
> > >>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > >>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > >>> your search terms here
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>
> > >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >>>
> > >>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > >>> these
> > >>> methods:
> > >>>
> > >>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> > >>>
> > >>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > >>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > >>> your search terms here
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>
> > >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >>>
> > >>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > >>> these methods:
> > >>>
> > >>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >>>
> > >>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > >>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >>
> > >> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > >> these methods:
> > >>
> > >> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >>
> > >> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > >>  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr Anthony C. Gill
> > > Natural History Curator
> > > A12 Macleay Museum
> > > University of Sydney
> > > NSW 2006
> > > Australia.
> > >
> > > E-mail:  anthony.c.gill at sydney.edu.au
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Anthony C. Gill
> > Natural History Curator
> > A12 Macleay Museum
> > University of Sydney
> > NSW 2006
> > Australia.
> >
> > E-mail:  anthony.c.gill at sydney.edu.au
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these
> > methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> > your search terms here
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



-- 
Alfred F. Newton
Curator Emeritus
Zoology Department/Insect Division
Field Museum of Natural History
1400 South Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605 USA
   Email:  anewton at fieldmuseum.org
   Telephone (direct line):  312-665-7738
   Fax (Zoology Dept.):  312-665-7754
   Austral Staphylinid PEET site including Staphyliniformia catalog
databases:        <http://www.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list