[Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies from Africa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Dec 11 19:31:12 CST 2015

And of course no author has ever thought of doing that! Silly me!

On Sat, 12/12/15, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new dragonflies from Africa
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Taxacom List" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Peter Rauch" <peterar at berkeley.edu>
 Received: Saturday, 12 December, 2015, 2:14 PM
 The way
 this is stated by Stephen is that the authors know that the
 paper is going to achieve nothing (according to Stephen) so
 they must have another motive - one that is said to be by
 Stephen to be to give attention to their papers.
 John Grehan
 On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at
 8:07 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 If I look
 around me, I don't see "the biota going
 silent", but that could just be the situation here in
 N.Z. Ongoing development in tropical areas may well be
 destroying biodiversity on a massive scale, but it is being
 driven by massive commercial factors, and people are always
 going to put their standard of living (in the short term)
 first.  Deforestation probably not only endangers
 biodiversity, but may also be a big factor in global climate
 change, but one that hardly gets a mention in big old
 climate change roadshow. Loss of a few dragonflies isn't
 going to halt the bulldozers. It is however an effective way
 for authors to draw attention to their otherwise overlooked
 publications, in the name of conserving nature. But who
 benefits from that? Nature or author?
 On Sat, 12/12/15, Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
  Subject: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
 dragonflies from Africa
  To: "Taxacom List" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Saturday, 12 December, 2015, 12:30 PM
  No one important***
  has been listening anyway, so if people "get
  off", no loss.
  What --in this instance/example-- has been
  "shouted in exaggerated
  contexts"  ?
  This example was not about "just another
  60 dragonflies" --that's the point.
  *** Look around you, look back
  just 60 or so years --who has been listening
  to the biota going silent ? That spectacle is
  our "exaggerated context". Do
  shout, or quietly --as usual-- describe the next 60
  species ?  Shout now,
  shout often --dare to turn 'em off before they
  realize that we weren't shouting loud
  enough, often enough, EFFECTiVELY
  enough.   (Or in other words,
  don't press cancel; bother to elaborate.)
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list