[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Dealing with taxonomic vandalism without the need to alter the zoological Code, this being relegation of bogus taxa to synonymy

Kim van der Linde kim at kimvdlinde.com
Fri Jan 10 16:56:55 CST 2014

I think the bigger issue is that many are making a big stink about these 
names, and if people would just synonymize them without poaying any 
attenetion to the 'controversy', the whole mess would be far less known 
and would have far less contributed to the 'fame' of the main author.

Really, if a name is valid for the CODE, how badly the ethics might be, 
just deal with it as you would with any other names.


On 1/10/2014 2:39 PM, Neal Evenhuis wrote:
> Touché!!
> Thanks, Mike.
> Few seem to know or pay attention to history, but it has helpful
> information to allow accurate decision making. When one puts the H/Sche
> situation in comparison to past situations like this, it is pitifully
> small and unimportant in the big scheme of all zoological taxonomy. The
> ICZN has, since its inception, rightly refused to "sanction" names or
> "suppress" names in a censorship mode and should not start now -- or even
> devise filters or rules (instead of recommendations) by which names should
> be formed to disallow certain people from publishing. If it does, it is a
> slippery slope that falls into an open can of worms leading to a sticky
> wicket guarding Pandora's box -- and it will it be hard to get out of all
> those clichés. They should only be involved with threats to stability, and
> instability can really only be proven after a long time of usage.
> I told Doug privately I would not comment -- apparently I lied.
> -Neal
> On Stardate 1/10/14 9:07 AM, Star Commander "Michael A. Ivie"
> <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>> This Hoser/Schleip etc. mess (Sorry to our Canadian members for calling
>> someone a Hoser in a message, and to our Yiddish speakers for referring
>> to someone as a Schleip, no disrespect is meant in either case) is a
>> minor kerfuffle, caused by too many aficionados chasing too little
>> biodiversity.  It can be dealt with by a combination of time (eventually
>> all the antagonists will die) and good followup scholarship.  We have
>> lots of examples where this type of silliness has been touted as the end
>> of the world, only to become a historical anecdote 50 years later.  Cope
>> and Marsh were the same.  Horn published rebuttals to Casey's papers
>> regularly, to which Casey responded angrily, there was a move to
>> suppress all of Maurice Pic's poorly described species, Lindroth even
>> applauded Pic's death as being good for the field, and in the end,
>> everyone moved on and we deal with it.  I think the antagonists here are
>> massively egomaniacal in thinking the rest of us should care about their
>> little dispute.  Leave the Commission out of this.  Names are valid or
>> not, quality is not an issue for the Commission. Unprofessional behavior
>> should be dealt with in other ways.  Don't involve the Code or the
>> Commission in these tar baby disputes.
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list