[Taxacom] The Doug Yanega Opinion
Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman
viper007 at live.com.au
Wed Oct 9 17:57:42 CDT 2013
Doug Yanega wrote:
the meantime, we cannot force people to use the names that the Code
indicates should be used.’
is not so. In fact the ICZN commissioners publish their “opinions” in BZN
regularly, knowing that they are treated as legally binding by other
taxonomists and followed.
in the context of the Wuster attack on the code, do you, Doug seek to pretend
the ICZN is powerless. Are you in fact
seeking to destroy the code from within?
is ample evidence that many of Hoser's works violate points 2, 4, 5, and
6 of the Code of Ethics (4 out of the 5 possible breaches categorized),”
you are clearly delusional to make such an assertion without a shred of
evidence. The comment makes a mockery of
you even claiming scientific credentials.
have yet to see an opinion piece (or even an e-mail) refuting
Wuster or Kaiser or their colleagues that was not written by one of the
people whose works they have been condemning.”
have obviously been living in cave Doug or are a compulsive liar. Please inform
me as to which. It is common knowledge that two of Australia’s foremost
herpetological taxonomists, Dr Hal Cogger (an ex IZCN commissioner) ... ever
heard of him Doug? And Dr Glenn Shea have both repeatedly publicly condemned
Wuster et al marks one and 2, (latter you call Kaiser et al).
I repost their comments here? ... as it seems you have missed them as quoted in
full and in context in my own publications dealing with Wuster et. al as published
in Australasian Journal of Herpetology issues 14 and 18 – which is clearly a
publication you have criticized on this forum and yet now demonstrated in your
case without actually reading.
Wells and Wellington to the above names, you have four out of four of Australia’s
most respected herpetological taxonomists all condemning Kaiser et al (Wuster
et al) and none in favor!
as for your comments about public opinion, I shall remind you Doug that science
is not about public opinion, but rather about facts. If public opinion were the issue, we’d all
still be creationists like Hinrich Kaiser himself, as it is well-known that
most of humanity still believes in a God and the Zoological Code would be
public opinion, perhaps I should also remind you that Wuster was one of those recently
busted for faking thousands of “votes” to defraud the Accor hotel company of
several thousand dollars, for which himself and his co-criminals, Mark O’Shea,
Al Coritz and David Williams were also caught red-handed. Doug is this the “public opinion” you seek to
Raymond Hoser - Snake Man
Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322
0412 777 211
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:36:32 -0700
> From: dyanega at ucr.edu
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Doug Yanega Opinion
> On 10/9/13 1:43 PM, Richard Wells wrote:
> > From what I can see a gaggle of self-appointed gate-keepers of taxonomy are now even attempting the perversion of the Rules of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature to achieve their ends by publishing and promoting the standards proffered in the Kaiser et al paper, and virtually nothing is being done about it by the Commissioners of the ICZN !
> To the extent that some of what has been printed amounts to calling for
> a "boycott" of names, that explicitly falls outside of the jurisdiction
> of the ICZN, so we are not in a position to "do anything about it"
> (except, possibly, changing the Code itself in the next edition so the
> Code of Ethics [Appendix A] can actually be used to invalidate names).
> In the meantime, we cannot force people to use the names that the Code
> indicates should be used. To the extent that some of what has been
> printed invokes the Code to declare names unavailable due to violations
> of Article 8.1, that is a matter where so far the Commission has not
> made any rulings, and it is unclear whether it would be supported or not.
> I, for one, would be very interested to know how the taxonomic community
> as a whole feels about the prospect of Appendix A being formally
> incorporated in the form of Articles in the Code, such that names
> published in violation could be declared unavailable. Right now, there
> is ample evidence that many of Hoser's works violate points 2, 4, 5, and
> 6 of the Code of Ethics (4 out of the 5 possible breaches categorized),
> and therefore unlikely to hold up should such a change be implemented.
> Yes, I am fully aware of the wording of point 7, and I will even state
> it here: "The observation of these principles is a matter for the proper
> feelings and conscience of individual zoologists, and the Commission is
> not empowered to investigate or rule upon alleged breaches of them."
> The point is this, however: the Code is, ultimately, written by
> zoologists who are acting as proxies for the remainder of the community.
> If it is the opinion of the community that the Commission SHOULD be
> empowered to declare works that are unethical (using certain criteria)
> as being unavailable, then the Code can be changed to reflect this
> opinion. But there is obviously no simple way for the Commission to
> determine what that community opinion actually is, other than the
> limited interface we have via mailing lists (such as this one or
> ICZN-L), and specific publications such as opinion pieces. In that
> respect, I have yet to see an opinion piece (or even an e-mail) refuting
> Wuster or Kaiser or their colleagues that was not written by one of the
> people whose works they have been condemning. As such, I fail to see why
> I or anyone else here should believe that public opinion is on your
> side, nor conclude that the status quo must be upheld rather than
> re-examined. Is it indisputable that adherence to the letter of the law
> should forever render an author or their work immune to public censure?
> I think we are seeing increasing evidence to the contrary.
> If there were a petition circulated, asking for zoologists to sign if
> they felt it should be possible to declare names unavailable due to
> ethical considerations, I wonder what percentage would sign, especially
> if they were shown examples of the kinds of works that are at issue?
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom