[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice andthe Code

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed Jan 8 12:20:38 CST 2014


Trying to inject a note of sanity:

* a scientific name comes formally into existence when
it is published: "made available" / "is validly published",
aka "is validated" or "is proposed" (depending on in
what nomenclatural universe one lives). 

* What is cited in an author citation are the authors
involved (in one way or another) in publishing the name 
(not necessarily the authors of the name). But, Rafaël 
Govaerts is quite right that often it would be more useful 
to cite the authority of the circumscription that is being used.

* Given that one of the foremost centres of plant
taxonomy and nomenclature in the world has chosen
to employ Rafaël Govaerts for years now, to deal with
matters of taxonomy and nomenclature, he may be 
assumed to be "in his depth" here ...

Paul
  From: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 1:46 PM

  Rafael, you seem to be out of your depth, not just in terms of the facts in my own (Hoser) matters, but also taxonomy and nomenclature in general.



  You wrote: “Currently we all cite the author who first validated the name.”
  This is not the practice. We in fact cite the author who first proposed the name.  This is the problem Wuster and co have with my names.  They don’t want to have to cite the word “Hoser” at any stage. Their obsessive hatred of myself is now polluting proper scientific discourse and endeavour.



  In terms of the taxonomy and nomenclature behind my names, well, they gave up arguing the science in about 2000, as seen by Wuster’s own posts on Kingsnake dot com and elsewhere where he conceded my work was correct, but that he’d try to engineer a ban on use of my names anyway.
  Now they simply want to steal my science and overwrite the names with their own horrible patronyms (e.g. Broadleysaurus .... puke!).



  Other have attempted the same scam in the past (always by deriding the original scientist as a thief or similar) and when these cases have come before the ICZN, they have correctly put the renegades in place.



  Recall in 1987, an attempt was made to suppress and overwrite a few dozen Wells and Wellington names.  The ICZN squashed that in 1991 and now guess what? Everyone uses the Wells and Wellington names.  As for the thieves who sought to steal the work from the original authors, well they have disappeared into oblivion.



  The difference this time is that Wuster and his gang are great at using the internet to whip up frenzies of hate based on lies that they peddle.  
  The internet as a battleground didn’t exist in the past.



  PS For your benefit, I have also been working full time with reptiles and taxonomic matters for more than 30 years so am not the fly by night idiot who knows nothing as alleged by some on these forums.



  All the best



  Raymond Hoser

  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

   

  > From: R.Govaerts at kew.org
  > To: philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:50:37 +0000
  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice and the Code
  > 
  > You may be interested in some statistic from the botanical world where this is much more common.
  > Silba has since 1981 published 577 names of Conifers and currently 20 of those are accepted by taxonomists. Because of this similar calls have made in the botanical world to do something about homemade journals however I think by quietly synonymising his names (rather than ignoring them) and providing good taxonomic data to e.g. CoL (which feeds into Eol, GBIF...) and online in general this has not lead to competing taxonomies.
  > As only 3% of his names need to be accepted it is very likely that Jackyhosernatrix or similar ones never need to be used.
  > Rafaël
  > 
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Philipp Wagner [mailto:philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de]
  > Sent: 08 January 2014 11:41
  > To: Rafaël Govaerts
  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice and the Code
  > 
  > 
  > > So we would no longer cite " Spracklandus Hoser 2009" but "Spracklandus [Wallach, Wüster & Broadley 2014]" or whatever format is decided on.
  > 
  > That would not solve the problem, because you would still have to mention names like "Jackyhosernatrix" and several others including the family name of the specific author.
  > And by the way, its hard to say that "they also want their name to be associated with the relevant taxonomic names"
  > if this entire problem is because of somebody who is narcissistic like him.
  > 
  > Philipp
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > You may have come across
  > >"author apud author" in older literature which was an early attempt at
  > >this.
  > > On some Orchid forums I notice people write "Dendrobium
  > >parishii(Rchb.f.1863)KEW". not a format I would encourage but it means
  > >the same.
  > > Rafaël
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > >From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
  > > Sent: 08 January 2014 06:24
  > > To: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman; Frank.Krell at dmns.org;
  > >drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
  > >dyanega at ucr.edu; envirodata at hotmail.com; rwrossco at gmail.com
  > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice and the
  > >Code
  > >
  > > Raymond:
  > > You are an idiot! But that is OK (suboptimal but OK).
  > >That said, you are making some valid points, but they are a bit too
  > >well hidden in idiotic ranting. Let me try to extract the good points:
  > > The taxonomists who are most aggressively against you are better at
  > >taxonomy than you are. Nothing can change that. If you compare their
  > >papers to yours, it is obvious. However, they want to have their cake
  > >and eat it too, by which I mean that it is not enough for them to be
  > >seen to be publishing good taxonomy, they also want their name to be
  > >associated with the relevant taxonomic names.
  > >It is the difference between publishing an original description versus
  > >a redescription. The redescription might well be much higher quality
  > >taxonomy than the original description, but the taxon name carries the
  > >name of the original author, not the author of the redescription. I see
  > >this as a mere technicality, but your opponents appear to see some
  > >glory in being the author of new names, and they want that glory. This
  > >is, I suggest, one of the main reasons why they are against you,
  > >because you are creating new names which all bear your name as
  > >describer, in advance of better quality taxonomy being done by them. I
  > >personally do not think that this issue warrants a whole new system of
  > >community validation/invalidation of names (i.e. a name filter).
  > >Part of the problem is that taxonomic quality is a continuum, so where
  > >do you draw the line? Furthermore, I have seen a fair few examples of
  > >poor taxonomic quality by professional taxonomists at reputable
  > >institutions, plus frequent sloppy Code compliance, and it gets through
  > >peer review based of professional networks of "friendly"
  > >reviewers. So, it seems a bit unfair to apply one standard to them and
  > >another to the likes of you. I also worry about how labels like
  > >"taxonomic vandal" can get pinned on people willy nilly. However, some
  > >people appear to have lobbied the ICZN hard enough to put significant
  > >pressure on the ICZN to take action against you and those few others
  > >like you. That's the reality ..
  > > Cheers,
  > > Stephen
  > >
  > >From: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
  > > To: "Frank.Krell at dmns.org" <frank.krell at dmns.org>;
  > >"drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com"
  > ><drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com>;
  > >"stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz"
  > ><stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
  > >"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
  > ><taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "dyanega at ucr.edu"
  > ><dyanega at ucr.edu>; "envirodata at hotmail.com"
  > ><envirodata at hotmail.com>; "rwrossco at gmail.com"
  > ><rwrossco at gmail.com>
  > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:03 PM
  > > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice and the
  > >Code
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >Frank (and Doug),
  > >
  > >Firstly I overlooked that the published section was a
  > >full text already and not an abstract, please accept my
  > >apologies for the oversight.
  > >
  > > My other earlier comments remain true and correct.
  > >
  > > But Doug, please send me a copy of a pdf for my own
  > >records – thanks in advance.
  > >
  > > Now Frank, the question has been raised as has the
  > >alleged problems, of what to do about taxonomic vandalism
  > >and allegedly unethical practices, both allegations made
  > >by the Wuster gang against myself. Lets not hide this!
  > >
  > > Noting I am the target of the attack and this is all it
  > >is, an attack, it is perhaps worth checking first to see
  > >if the alleged problem actually exists (in the context
  > >given) and the alleged factual basis behind the alleged
  > >problem!
  > >
  > > A cursory analysis of my works spanning more than three
  > >decades in the peer reviewed literature I might add,
  > >shows the charges laid against me fail in the first
  > >instance. In summary, there have been no breaches of
  > >ethics and no taxonomic vandalism on my part. There is
  > >no new problem! In other words – case dismissed.
  > >
  > > All my works have been scientific and it is notable that
  > >the Wuster gang gave up arguing scientific merit, when
  > >they lost that argument in year 2000! And also note that
  > >all four papers attacked by the Wuster gang in year 2000,
  > >have had their taxonomy validated by more recently
  > >available molecular methods, the result being newly
  > >proposed names from all four papers are now widely used.
  > >
  > > On that basis the “need” for an ICZN solution for this
  > >problem is not yet required. The science stands (or
  > >fails) on its merits!
  > >
  > > However, the actual charges of taxonomic vandalism and
  > >nomenclatural misconduct and unethical actions are
  > >confirmed against the likes of Wallach, Wuster, Broadley,
  > >Schleip and the other members of the Wuster gang. The
  > >ICZN does already have a mandate to deal with
  > >nomenclatural vandalism and this is the basis of my own
  > >submissions to the ICZN, three of which are now in your
  > >hands, having been sent to you (the ICZN) a week back.
  > >
  > > I will not publish the details of this material here
  > >just yet (unless asked and the ICZN secretariat OK’s it).
  > >
  > > However, for the benefit of those who have not seen this
  > >material, the case/s involve science based names for
  > >valid taxa, named up to a decade ago by myself (five
  > >well-known and obvious genera of reptiles), that Wuster
  > >and their gang seek as of the last month to rename by
  > >making false claims against me and then usurping the
  > >golden rules of priority and stability. One of my
  > >allegedly unscientific descriptions for the reticulated
  > >python genus Broghammerus of 10 years back, ran 1,477
  > >words and has been widely used and accepted in the
  > >peer-reviewed literature and books, etc, while the
  > >ostensibly “scientific” description of the new genus
  > >“Malayopython” (of last month) by the Wuster gang authors
  > >(Reynolds et al.) runs just 5 words (yes five whole
  > >words!) and is probably not even ICZN code compliant!
  > >
  > > The same sort of unethical thing by the Wuster gang or
  > >others like them against other works of people they have
  > >deemed “soft targets” has been attempted before and quite
  > >correctly squashed by the Commission (e.g. the Wells and
  > >Wellington and the Sprackland monitor matters, two
  > >judgements 1991 and 2000).
  > >
  > > I am all for everyone working to rewrite the code to
  > >account for changes in times and methods, but in terms of
  > >the current alleged problem and myself, there simply
  > >isn’t one.
  > > And in terms of the actual problem in terms of the
  > >Wuster gang, the rules quite adequately deal with the
  > >Wuster gang’s false claims and unethical attempts to
  > >steal the work of others as well.
  > >
  > > Also for the benefit of all, taxonomic vandalism should
  > >be defined so we can progress on the same level and I do
  > >this herein.
  > >
  > > “It is the act of knowingly renaming a well-defined and
  > >accepted taxon that already has a valid code-compliant
  > >name, for the express purpose of creating nomenclatural
  > >instability through the attempt to engineer an improper
  > >boycott of the proper name.”
  > >
  > > This is the very matter I have had cause to bring to the
  > >attention of the ICZN that has been perpetrated by the
  > >Wuster gang. By contrast, it is not an act I (Raymond
  > >Hoser) have ever engaged in.
  > >
  > > All the best
  > >
  > > Raymond Hoser
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > 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
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >> From: Frank.Krell at dmns.org
  > >> To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; kim at kimvdlinde.com;
  > >>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 22:22:00 -0700
  > >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic
  > >>Practice and the Code
  > >>
  > >> Stephen,
  > >> I agree with almost everything you say, but just to make
  > >>clear: The Commission is not trying to offload the
  > >>policing of bad or unethical taxonomy to the scientific
  > >>community (if this is what you meant). There is nothing
  > >>to offload since the Commission has currently no mandate
  > >>to police bad or unethical taxonomy. For hundreds of
  > >>years, the scientific community has "policed" bad
  > >>taxonomy or unethical behavior without the help of a
  > >>nomenclatural commission. (In my opinion, this has always
  > >>worked out well in the long term.)
  > >> Some individuals want the Commission to have this new,
  > >>additional mandate, and they have lobbied for it. Instead
  > >>of blindly following the lobbyists, the Commission wants
  > >>to explore thoughts and opinions of the broader community
  > >>on this issue.
  > >>
  > >> Cheers
  > >>
  > >> Frank
  > >>
  > >> Dr. Frank-T. Krell
  > >> Curator of Entomology
  > >> Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological
  > >>Nomenclature
  > >> Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
  > >> Department of Zoology
  > >> Denver Museum of Nature & Science
  > >> 2001 Colorado Boulevard
  > >> Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
  > >> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
  > >> Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
  > >> Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
  > >> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
  > >> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
  > >> The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create
  > >>a community of critical thinkers who understand the
  > >>lessons of the past and act as responsible stewards of
  > >>the future.
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> ________________________________________
  > >> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >>[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen
  > >>Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
  > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:03 PM
  > >> To: Kim van der Linde; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic
  > >>Practice and the Code
  > >>
  > >> I have submitted through the formal channel (it will be
  > >>interesting to see if my submission sees the light of day
  > >>or disappears into the void).
  > >>
  > >> In a nutshell, I think that several distinct issues are
  > >>being conflated. Is the problem poor quality taxonomy, or
  > >>bad ethics? Does the ICZN have any mandate to tackle
  > >>either of those two issues? Neither of them is directly
  > >>about zoological nomenclature. Some "bona fide"
  > >>scientists also have bad ethics, but in a more subtle
  > >>way. It is somewhat ironic that the ICZN is effectively
  > >>proposing to punish people who adhere strictly to the
  > >>Code, which is what the "taxonomic vandals" do, when, by
  > >>contrast, some "bona fide" taxonomists are often very
  > >>sloppy when it comes to Code compliance! Clearly, the
  > >>ICZN has misgivings about directly tackling the problems,
  > >>which would mean going against their number one principle
  > >>of not interfering in taxonomy, so they are trying to
  > >>offload the policing to the "scientific community". I'm
  > >>not convinced that the problem is widespread and/or
  > >>serious enough to warrant all this. Rather I suspect a
  > >>handful of "bona fide" scientists
  > >> are irritated by some "taxonomic vandals", and have been
  > >>lobbying the ICZN accordingly.
  > >>
  > >> Regarding any proposed new name, the only thing, I
  > >>suggest, we need to ask is: can it be applied to a taxon
  > >>by way of the description/illustrations/type(s)? If so,
  > >>then there is no problem and little or no reason to
  > >>invalidate the name. We should ask this question of all
  > >>names, not just those of the supposed "taxonomic vandals"
  > >>...
  > >>
  > >> Stephen
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> ________________________________
  > >> From: Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
  > >> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> Sent: Wednesday, 8 January 2014 4:11 PM
  > >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for Comments: Taxonomic
  > >>Practice and the Code
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> I will submit an comment through the formal channels,
  > >>and it will be
  > >> along the line of: HELL NO!
  > >>
  > >> Kim
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> On 1/7/2014 1:34 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
  > >> > Dear All: I and fellow ICZN Commissioner Mark Harvey
  > >>have just published
  > >> > a brief note, titled as in the subject header, in the
  > >>Bulletin of
  > >> > Zoological Nomenclature. The online version is
  > >>available at
  > >> >
  > >> > *http://iczn.org/node/40405*
  > >> >
  > >> > I feel it is arguably the most important such
  > >>solicitation in the
  > >> > history of the ICZN, as it could potentially affect
  > >>one of the most
  > >> > fundamental principles of the Code; namely, that the
  > >>Code and Commission
  > >> > remain neutral regarding violations of standards of
  > >>taxonomic practice
  > >> > and ethics. As such, I wish to draw people's attention
  > >>to it, and take
  > >> > this opportunity to emphasize several things:
  > >> >
  > >> > (1) For everyone reading this, YOUR participation is
  > >>crucial, whether
  > >> > you are a practicing taxonomist or not, because
  > >>everyone who studies
  > >> > living organisms is affected by controversies
  > >>surrounding the correct
  > >> > names to be used for those organisms. This is far too
  > >>important an issue
  > >> > to allow a tiny handful of people to have undue
  > >>influence over the
  > >> > course of the discussion, and the future of taxonomy.
  > >>The Commission is
  > >> > not likely to undertake fundamental changes in the
  > >>Code unless there is
  > >> > a CLEAR MAJORITY in terms of public opinion. As such,
  > >>I am hoping to
  > >> > have hundreds, if not thousands, of responses
  > >>submitted in response to
  > >> > this solicitation, so we on the Commission have a
  > >>truly significant
  > >> > sample size to work with. I therefore encourage
  > >>everyone reading this to
  > >> > forward this message (in its entirety) to all of their
  > >>colleagues.
  > >> >
  > >> > (2) PLEASE do not respond to this solicitation here,
  > >>in this newsgroup.
  > >> > *Instructions for submitting comments can be found at
  > >> > http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments*(and
  > >>also see additional
  > >> > important details in the solicitation itself). This is
  > >>NOT a call for a
  > >> > public debate - I would even prefer to receive
  > >>personal e-mail requests
  > >> > for clarification, however numerous, rather than have
  > >>this turn into a
  > >> > public free-for-all, because it is a very contentious
  > >>subject.
  > >> >
  > >> > (3) PLEASE read the solicitation carefully. We tried
  > >>to make it concise,
  > >> > and explicit. I wish to emphasize that the question at
  > >>hand is a GENERAL
  > >> > one, regarding the *role of standards and ethics in
  > >>the practice of
  > >> > taxonomy and nomenclature*. I will quote the pertinent
  > >>passage, in order
  > >> > to reinforce the idea:
  > >> >
  > >> > "We must stress that this is a very broad issue, which
  > >>manifests in many
  > >> > ways, affects many disciplines, and has occurred
  > >>throughout the history
  > >> > of taxonomy. We also recognize that the most prominent
  > >>and timely
  > >> > concerns relate to issues such as plagiarism,
  > >>falsification of data,
  > >> > criminal activities, and practices that subvert or
  > >>circumvent the
  > >> > process of peer review (which is considered an
  > >>essential element of all
  > >> > scientific practice, taxonomy included). This is,
  > >>emphatically, not a
  > >> > referendum on professionals versus amateurs (or other
  > >>cultural
  > >> > stereotypes), nor a referendum on the merits (or lack
  > >>thereof) of peer
  > >> > review. Basically, what we seek to know is whether the
  > >>taxonomic
  > >> > community wants to continue dealing with these issues
  > >>at their own
  > >> > discretion, or whether they want the Commission to be
  > >>empowered to do so
  > >> > (or something in between); we will not do so on our
  > >>own initiative."
  > >> >
  > >> > (4) For those of you seeking a "nutshell version" of
  > >>what the heart of
  > >> > the controversy is that triggered this solicitation in
  > >>the first place,
  > >> > I can offer the following: "Are there, or are there
  > >>not, circumstances -
  > >> > when the opinion of the community is that a work has
  > >>been produced in a
  > >> > manner incompatible with standards of taxonomic
  > >>practice and ethics -
  > >> > where names or nomenclatural acts in a work should be
  > >>treated /as if
  > >> > they had never been published/?". Note, however, that
  > >>this is not the
  > >> > only possible approach! If you have a clear opinion on
  > >>this, or
  > >> > alternatives, then please communicate your thoughts to
  > >>the Commission
  > >> > for consideration.
  > >> >
  > >> > Sincerely,
  > >> >
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> _______________________________________________
  > >> Taxacom Mailing List
  > >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >>
  > >> 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.
  > >
  > >> _______________________________________________
  > >> Taxacom Mailing List
  > >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >>
  > >> 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.
  > >> _______________________________________________
  > >> Taxacom Mailing List
  > >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >>
  > >> 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.
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >
  > > 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.
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > Taxacom Mailing List
  > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > >
  > > 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.
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > Taxacom Mailing List
  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  > 
  > 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.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  iczn-list mailing list
  iczn-list at afriherp.org
  http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
  Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
  Versie: 2014.0.4259 / Virusdatabase: 3658/6986 - datum van uitgifte: 01/08/14



More information about the Taxacom mailing list