[Taxacom] Citizen Science

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 25 16:26:35 CDT 2014


The issue of photos vs. specimens is a complex and interesting one. In many cases, photos are sufficient to identify a species. So, if one wants data on spatiotemporal distribution, it is a better use of resources to make a collection of digital photos than it is to accession all those specimens into a collection which will require continual curation. That said, I am not necessarily talking about photos of live specimens in the field, which have limited utility. My vision is diagnostic images of dead specimens, with no need to then preserve the specimen*. This is my approach on NatureWatch NZ. Luckily, they, and also iNaturalist and BowerBird have no "ethical" objections to this approach, but some other sites like ProjectNoah don't appear to be open to such modifications of their initial purpose and philosophy.

Stephen

*One objection to this is that taxonomy changes, and species get split. However, in practical terms, it would be rare that good diagnostic photos could not be re-evaluated in the event of taxonomic changes.

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26/10/14, Michael Wilson <wilsomichael at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citizen Science
 To: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2014, 2:35 AM
 
 One aspect of the increasing use of
 digital images for recording does not
 seem to have been mentioned in this interesting discussion
 (if it has I
 apologise). Recording using images has become a substitute
 for taking any
 specimens. We often receive images and requests for
 identifications based
 on images- when many groups would require examination of
 small characters.
 This is fine- we point out that we need specimens to examine
 since there
 could be many species that look almost identical. But many
 are morally
 opposed to taking any specimens - even of small
 invertebrates on the
 grounds they are conservationists- and not 'collectors'.
 
 I do believe that if we cannot encourage the 'next
 generation' to develop
 their skills and interests by taking specimens home to
 examine under a
 microscope then we will have even fewer taxonomists than we
 have now.
 
 Mike Wilson
 
 Entomology Section
 Dept of Natural Sciences
 National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, UK
 
 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Mike Sadka <sadkamike at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 > Ah Stephen!
 >
 > You throw out such tempting bait...
 >
 > But I've promised myself I am not rising again!
 >
 > Cheerio, Mike
 >
 > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Thorpe <
 > stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
 > > wrote:
 >
 > > It an issue of "reading between the lines" and the
 loading of neutral
 > > facts with negative spin. Also, Dr. Ward set the
 Hymenoptera project up
 > > only to shoot it down for not having associated
 protocols that he didn't
 > > set it up with! I just think that this is a
 nonsense paper. It concludes
 > > the blatantly obvious (i.e., that there are some
 geographical and
 > taxonomic
 > > biases in "citizen science" data) from an analysis
 of a very limited
 > > dataset, and fails to consider how sites like
 NatureWatch NZ might evolve
 > > in such a way as to lessen these biases. One way
 would be more engagement
 > > from professional scientists, but Darren
 contributed no observations
 > > himself, so it all just seems to me to be a bit of
 a hatchet job.
 > >
 > > Stephen
 > >
 > > --------------------------------------------
 > > On Sat, 25/10/14, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 > >
 > >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citizen Science
 > >  To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 > >  Received: Saturday, 25 October, 2014, 1:54
 AM
 > >
 > >  Continuing Stephen and
 > >  thread on Darren Ward and Citizen Science.
 I
 > >  am attaching an excerpt of his abstract:
 > >
 > >  Darren Ward (excerpt from
 > >  abstract of the article):
 > >
 > >  “Over the course of 1 year 25 members
 > >  contributed 360 records from 186
 > >  taxa,
 > >  including the discovery of several
 introduced species new to
 > >  New
 > >  Zealand. There was a strong geographical
 > >  bias to the records, with the
 > >  majority being
 > >  based around the major cities. Aculeates
 (stinging
 > >  wasps) were significantly over-represented
 in
 > >  the NatureWatch records.
 > >  Only half (55 %) of
 > >  taxa were identified to species level, with
 a
 > >  further 28 % at genus level, and 17 %
 > >  identified above genus level
 > >  (family,
 > >  order). Furthermore, the majority (65 %) of
 taxa were
 > >  recorded only once, and only a few taxa
 were
 > >  recorded [5 times (top
 > >  records were
 > >  ‘‘Ichneumonidae’’,
 ‘‘Hymenoptera’’,
 > >  Anthidium manicatum,
 > >  and Apis mellifera). It
 > >  is probable that these same biases also
 exist
 > >  for many other taxonomic groups in projects
 > >  operated by citizen
 > >  scientists lacking set
 > >  protocols. Caution should be exercised on
 the
 > >  subsequent use, compilation, and analysis
 of
 > >  citizen science,
 > >  especially without prior
 > >  examination of records and potential
 biases.”
 > >
 > >
 > >  (Stephen´s
 > >  opinion crudely cut and pasted here) “I
 interpret this
 > >  to
 > >  have been a deliberate attempt to
 > >  reinforce to the professional
 > >  community the
 > >  (false) idea that such "citizen science"
 projects
 > >  aren't
 > >  worth bothering with.”
 > >
 > >
 > >  Seriously,
 > >  what is the problem with what Mr Ward is
 saying? If you
 > >  check any of the sites mentioned in Taxacom
 you
 > >  will discover that
 > >  what he is saying is
 > >  true! This is not a criticism of nature
 lovers,
 > >  it is a human condition: we love
 butterflies
 > >  and colourful things and
 > >  dislike small
 > >  creepy-crawlies. Why would you expect
 different from the
 > >  subset of nature macrophotographers?
 > >
 > >  Jason
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >  On 24 October
 > >  2014 09:17, Alastair   Culham
 <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
 > >  wrote:
 > >  > For the past year we've been
 > >  running a citizen science project to survey
 powdery mildew
 > >  species around the UK in a joint project
 with the Royal
 > >  Horticultural Society -
 > > http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/crg/powdery-mildew-survey/
 > >  >
 > >  > This has resulted in
 > >  a data set of around 200 samples in the
 trial year including
 > >  59 different PM species
 > >
 > http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/whiteknightsbiodiversity/campus-species-lists/fungi/powdery-mildew-2014/
 > > .
 > >   We are hoping for over 1000
 samples next season.
 > >  >
 > >  > Samples are
 > >  identified using a combination of
 morphological and
 > >  molecular techniques by a research council
 funded PhD
 > >  student and the results are emailed back to
 the sample
 > >  providers as well as posted on our
 blogs.  Engaging the UK
 > >  public in this scheme has allowed a more
 widespread sampling
 > >  and allows the student doing the work to
 focus on lab work
 > >  rather than chasing around the UK for
 samples.
 > >  >
 > >  > The challenge has
 > >  been to keep the survey in people's minds so
 that we get
 > >  samples sent on a regular basis throughout
 the long mildew
 > >  season.  This is a non-trivial job and
 requires a lot of
 > >  forward planning.
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  Ours is a small CS scheme compared with
 large scale
 > >  monitoring of the UK flora by the BSBI which
 has a network
 > >  of local (usually highly expert) regional
 recorders and a
 > >  further network of taxonomic experts to back
 them up.  The
 > >  common feature of effective CS schemes is
 that there is an
 > >  ongoing investment in management of them and
 close
 > >  monitoring of data quality.
 > >  >
 > >  > CS can be highly effective and can be
 a
 > >  very cost effective way of gathering data if
 the scheme is
 > >  run well.  All science risks a rubbish
 in, rubbish out
 > >  scenario and CS is just as sensitive to this
 as any other
 > >  science is.
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  Alastair
 > >  >
 > > 
 ____________________________________________
 > >  >
 > >  > Dr Alastair Culham
 > >  > Centre for Plant Diversity and
 > >  Systematics
 > >  > Harborne Building, School
 > >  of Biological Sciences
 > >  > University of
 > >  Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AS
 > >  >
 > >  U.K.
 > >  >
 > >  > Associate
 > >  Professor of Botany
 > >  > Curator, Reading
 > >  University Herbarium (RNG)
 > >  >
 > > 
 ____________________________________________
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  ________________________________________
 > >  > From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 > >  on behalf of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > >  > Sent: 23 October 2014 21:35
 > >  > To: KenWalker; John Grehan
 > >  > Cc: Taxacom
 > >  > Subject:
 > >  Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia
 aldabrae
 > >  >
 > >  > Ken may be a little
 > >  bit oversensitive, given that he probably
 has to constantly
 > >  battle the indifference to (and sometimes
 obstruction of)
 > >  citizen science, by entomologist colleagues.
 In my view,
 > >  biodiversity recording sites like Project
 Noah, iSpot,
 > >  iNaturalist, BowerBird, NatureWatch NZ, etc.
 are not
 > >  actually all that useful *as initially
 conceived* (photos in
 > >  the field of live organisms), but can evolve
 into something
 > >  far more useful. I agree that there is not
 much point in
 > >  thousands of records of monarch butterflies,
 and no little
 > >  brown micro moths. For some idea of my
 vision for these
 > >  biodiversity recording sites, I invite you
 to browse my own
 > >  2489 contributions to NatureWatch NZ, here:
 > > http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/stho002
 > >  >
 > >  > Stephen
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > > 
 --------------------------------------------
 > >  > On Fri, 24/10/14, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 > >  wrote:
 > >  >
 > >  >  Subject:
 > >  Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia
 aldabrae
 > >  >  To: "Walker, Ken" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
 > >  >  Cc: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 > >  >  Received: Friday, 24 October,
 2014, 2:51
 > >  AM
 > >  >
 > >  >  Ken,
 > >  >
 > >  >  Admittedly I only
 > >  read postings in a fragmentary way and I
 > >  >  know I sometimes
 > >  >
 > >  miss items, but I am confused by your
 reference to Jason
 > >  >  Mate saying the
 > >  >
 > >  the efforts of citizen science can be
 dismissed as "
 > >  are
 > >  >  taking pictures of
 > >  >  "bugs": bigger, smaller, red,
 > >  blue or yellow." What I read
 > >  >  was
 > >  that he said
 > >  >  that "The decline
 > >  in "natural history" amateurs is global
 > >  >  and cannot be
 > >  >
 > >  compensated by the explosion of
 macrophotography since
 > >  they
 > >  >  (mostly) are
 > >  >  taking pictures of "bugs":
 > >  bigger, smaller, red, blue or
 > >  >
 > >  yellow." This made
 > >  >  no reference
 > >  to 'citizen science' and I did not see any
 > >  >  implication of
 > >  >
 > >  such. It was only a criticism of a
 particular mode of
 > >  >  information gathering
 > >  >  or sharing. I would be grateful
 > >  therefore for how you made
 > >  >  that link
 > >  the
 > >  >  way you did.
 > >  >
 > >  >  John Grehan
 > >  >
 > >  >  On Wed, Oct 22,
 > >  2014 at 9:04 PM, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
 > >  >  wrote:
 > >  >
 > >  >  > Hi Jason,
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  > I totally disagree with
 > >  your assessment of citizen
 > >  >  science
 > >  being on the
 > >  >  > decline and that
 > >  the efforts of citizen science can be
 > >  >
 > >  dismissed as " are
 > >  >  > taking
 > >  pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller, red,
 blue
 > >  >  or yellow."
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  > Here is Australia, we have
 > >  a citizen science website
 > >  >  called
 > >  BowerBird
 > >  >  > which is a socially
 > >  interactive website somewhat like
 > >  >  the
 > >  northern
 > >  >  > hemisphere equivalents
 > >  of Project Noah, iNaturalist and
 > >  >
 > >  iSpot.  For me, the
 > >  >  > quality of
 > >  a citizen science website is whether or not
 > >  >  the data it
 > >  >  >
 > >  generates is on-shared with national or
 international
 > >  >  biodiversity
 > >  >  >
 > >  databases.
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > Let me give you one
 BowerBird
 > >  example that came in this
 > >  >  month.  A
 > >  citizen
 > >  >  > science person submitted
 > >  an image of a
 > >  >  ladybeetle.  He had
 > >  tried to
 > >  >  > identify it himself but
 > >  could not place the
 > >  >  species.  In
 > >  Australia, we have
 > >  >  > a wonderful
 > >  CSIRO website displaying all known extant
 > >  >  Australian ladybeetle
 > >  >  > species.  The BowerBird
 image did
 > >  not match any of
 > >  >  the images on the
 > >  >  > diagnostic website. 
 So, we sent
 > >  the image to the
 > >  >  BMNH ladybeetle
 > >  expert
 > >  >  > who came back with the
 > >  statement "Back from the
 > >  >
 > >  Dead".  The species
 > >  >  >
 > >  photographed was presumed to be extinct as
 it had not
 > >  >  been seen or recorded
 > >  >  > since 1940.  The story
 of this
 > >  citizen science
 > >  >  find was told in one
 > >  of our
 > >  >  > national newspapers:
 > >  >  >
 > >
 > http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/extinct-ladybird-back-from-the-dead-20141014-115u4j.html
 > >  >  > (where you can see an image
 of the
 > >  beetle).
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > To me, the essence of science is to
 observe and ask
 > >  >  questions.  What
 > >  >
 > >  > better way is there than to have
 thousands of
 > >  "natural
 > >  >  history amateur
 > >  >  > eyes" documenting spatial
 and
 > >  temporal data for the
 > >  >  Australian
 > >  (swap
 > >  >  > Australia for any other
 > >  country) biota.  BowerBird
 > >  >  has
 > >  discovered new
 > >  >  > species and
 > >  helped to track invasive species.  The
 > >  >  exotic carder bee
 > >  >
 > >  > (Afranthidium (Immanthidium) repetitum)
 was first
 > >  >  reported in Brisbane in
 > >  >  > 2000.  By 2007, it had
 been
 > >  recorded  south
 > >  >  in Sydney but since
 > >  the Sydney
 > >  >  > records no further
 > >  distribution extensions had been
 > >  >
 > >  recorded.  Then in
 > >  >  > February and
 > >  March 2014, two amateurs noticed a
 > >  >
 > >  "strange bee" in their
 > >  >  >
 > >  garden.  They photographed their
 strange bee and
 > >  >  posted the images on
 > >  >  > BowerBird with the question
 > >  "Bee ID?".  We bee
 > >  >
 > >  "experts" immediately
 > >  >  >
 > >  recognised it as the South African carder
 bee and the
 > >  >  records came from
 > >  >
 > >  > hundreds of kilometres north of
 Brisbane and
 > >  hundreds
 > >  >  south of Sydney - on
 > >  >  > the state of Victoria's
 > >  border.  Australia has
 > >  >  many exotic
 > >  "sleeper weeds"
 > >  >  > but
 > >  they remain in small numbers as they lack
 their
 > >  >  effective pollinator.
 > >  >  > The spread of any exotic
 pollinator
 > >  needs to be
 > >  >  monitored and watched for
 > >  a
 > >  >  > possible explosion of a
 > >  sleeper weed. It was citizen
 > >  >  science
 > >  who alerted us
 > >  >  > to this alarming
 > >  spread.
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > BowerBird "favourites" are often
 created by
 > >  an "expert"
 > >  >  mentoring
 > >  "natural
 > >  >  > history amateur
 > >  eyes" .  One such case is the
 > >  >
 > >  humble but extraordinary life
 > >  >  >
 > >  styled and bizarrely coloured flatworms.
 > >  >  Australia has only one flatworm
 > >  >  > expert located in north
 > >  Queensland.  However, he
 > >  >  has
 > >  inspired many
 > >  >  > BowerBird members
 > >  from around Australia to roll back
 > >  >
 > >  logs in search of
 > >  >  > these
 > >  flatworms.  The expert identifies each
 > >  >  flatworm image posted to
 > >  >  > BowerBird but he adds
 stories about
 > >  how the scientific
 > >  >  name was derived
 > >  and
 > >  >  > about the species
 > >  behaviour.  There are now almost
 > >  >  50
 > >  BowerBird members on
 > >  >  > the
 > >  Flatworm project who have image captured
 many of
 > >  >  Australia's flatworm
 > >  >  > species.  The expert
 has told me
 > >  that for many
 > >  >  species, the
 > >  BowerBird
 > >  >  > images were his first
 > >  live images for many species - he
 > >  >
 > >  usually sees them
 > >  >  > as pickled
 > >  individuals.  The expert has also
 > >  >
 > >  requested and been able to get
 > >  >  >
 > >  these amateurs to collect and send him
 specimens for
 > >  >  DNA analysis.  If you
 > >  >  > have never seen a flatworm
 or want
 > >  to read something
 > >  >  about them, then
 > >  I
 > >  >  > recommend the flatworm
 > >  project:
 > >  >  > http://www.bowerbird.org.au/projects/1633/sightings
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  Finally, the Australian GBIF node is ALA
 (Atlas of
 > >  >  Living Australia).
 > >  >  > BowerBird went live in May
 2013 and
 > >  there are automatic
 > >  >  weekly data
 > >  >  > (images. Identifications,
 > >  spatrila/temporal etc)
 > >  >  uploads to
 > >  ALA.
 > >  >  > Currently, there are almost
 > >  11,000 BowerBird records on
 > >  >  ALA (to
 > >  see the
 > >  >  > spread of records from
 > >  around Australia see:
 > >  >  >
 > >
 > http://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=data_resource_uid:dr893#tab_mapView
 > >  >  > ).  This represents
 about a 60%
 > >  identification
 > >  >  success rate for
 > >  images that
 > >  >  > you describe as
 > >  "pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller,
 > >  >  red, blue or yellow."
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > New
 > >  species have been nominated, new
 distributions have
 > >  >  been recorded, new
 > >  >  > stories have been told about
 the
 > >  Australian fauna, new
 > >  >  friendships
 > >  have
 > >  >  > been made and these new
 > >  "friends" now go out together
 > >  >  on their own
 > >  >  >
 > >  photographic BioBlitzes and on-share their
 finds to
 > >  >  BowerBird to ALA to
 > >  >  > GBIF.  I'm happy with
 this
 > >  deal !!
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > I am sure these stories here can be
 repeated for
 > >  >  Project Noah, iNaturalist
 > >  >  > and iSpot.
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  > For me, citizen science is
 > >  on the up not the
 > >  >  decline.
 > >  Getting
 > >  >  > "professional"
 > >  scientists to engage with this "new"
 > >  >  data source is the next
 > >  >  > "challenge".
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > Best
 > >  Ken
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  -----Original Message-----
 > >  >  > From:
 > >  Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 > >  >  On Behalf Of JF
 > >  >
 > >  > Mate
 > >  >  > Sent: Thursday, 23
 > >  October 2014 2:14 AM
 > >  >  > To:
 > >  Taxacom
 > >  >  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 > >  De-extinction & Rhachistia
 > >  >
 > >  aldabrae
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > Hi Bob,
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > I agree the scale is
 altogether
 > >  different but even in
 > >  >  densely
 > >  populated
 > >  >  > areas in Australia
 > >  even basic invertebrate biodiversity
 > >  >
 > >  knowledge is
 > >  >  > lacking. The
 > >  decline in "natural history" amateurs is
 > >  >  global and cannot be
 > >  >  > compensated by the explosion
 of
 > >  macrophotography since
 > >  >  they (mostly)
 > >  are
 > >  >  > taking pictures of
 > >  "bugs": bigger, smaller, red, blue
 > >  >  or yellow. If you
 > >  >
 > >  > don´t know what you are photographing
 then it is
 > >  like
 > >  >  it doesn´t exist. For
 > >  >  > Europe (with some
 exceptions) the
 > >  decline may not be as
 > >  >  damaging. The
 > >  fauna
 > >  >  > is well known and there
 > >  are plenty of guides and keys
 > >  >  that
 > >  digital
 > >  >  > enthusiasts could use.
 > >  The goal here has at least been
 > >  >
 > >  partially achieved.
 > >  >  > In
 > >  Australia, other than butterflies and a
 couple of
 > >  >  other popular groups
 > >  >  > you are out of luck.
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  Cristian. Spain is in a similar (albeit not
 as extreme)
 > >  >  situation to
 > >  >  >
 > >  Australia. High biodiversity, incomplete
 knowledge but
 > >  >  a declining body of
 > >  >  > amateurs (and legislation
 that
 > >  doesn´t help either).
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > Best
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > Jason
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >  > This e-mail is solely for
 > >  the named addressee and may
 > >  >  be
 > >  confidential. You
 > >  >  > should only
 > >  read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute,
 > >  >  act in reliance on
 > >  >  > or commercialise the
 contents if
 > >  you are authorised to
 > >  >  do so. If you
 > >  are
 > >  >  > not the intended recipient
 > >  of this e-mail, please
 > >  >  notify
 > >  mailto:
 > >  >  > postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
 > >  >  by email immediately, or notify
 the
 > >  sender
 > >  >  > and then destroy any copy
 > >  of this message. Views
 > >  >  expressed in
 > >  this email
 > >  >  > are those of the
 > >  individual sender, except where
 > >  >
 > >  specifically stated to be
 > >  >  > those
 > >  of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum
 Victoria
 > >  >  does not represent,
 > >  >  > warrant or guarantee that
 the
 > >  integrity of this
 > >  >  communication has
 > >  been
 > >  >  > maintained nor that it is
 > >  free from errors, virus or
 > >  >
 > >  interference.
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > > 
 _______________________________________________
 > >  >  > Taxacom Mailing List
 > >  >  > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  >  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > >  >  > The Taxacom Archive back to
 1992
 > >  may be searched at:
 > >  >  > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  >
 > >  Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > > 
 _______________________________________________
 > >  >  Taxacom Mailing List
 > >  >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  >  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > >  >  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
 may be
 > >  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >  >
 > >  >  Celebrating 27
 > >  years of Taxacom in 2014.
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > > 
 _______________________________________________
 > >  > Taxacom Mailing List
 > >  >
 > >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > >  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be
 > >  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >  >
 > >  > Celebrating 27 years
 > >  of Taxacom in 2014.
 > >  >
 > > 
 _______________________________________________
 > >  > Taxacom Mailing List
 > >  >
 > >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > >  > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be
 > >  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >  >
 > >  > Celebrating 27 years
 > >  of Taxacom in 2014.
 > > 
 _______________________________________________
 > >  Taxacom Mailing List
 > >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > >  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 > >  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > >  Celebrating 27 years of
 > >  Taxacom in 2014.
 > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
 at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 > >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list