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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Dec 14 17:39:01 CST 2015

>free in the sense of beer<

Hey, I still have to pay for that stuff! I want to live where you live!

Anyway, yes, it is free to read their surmon (in low res!), but not free to do anything useful with their data! Though, it would cost to make it open access, so, depending who pays, it might be better to spend that money on more taxonomy, rather than giving it to the publisher to make up for lost profits.


On Tue, 15/12/15, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new	dragonflies	from	Africa
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 Cc: "'taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 15 December, 2015, 12:31 PM
 #yiv6927689143 -- .yiv6927689143EmailQuote
 {margin-left:1pt;padding-left:4pt;border-left:#800000 2px
 Hi Stephen,
 The paper is free in the sense of beer, but that's
 not the same as open access (free as in liberty). The second
 page of the PDF states "all rights reserved". To
 be open access I'd expect an explicit statement giving
 permission to reuse. For background
  see http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285
 Sent from my
 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015
 at 2:33 PM -0800, "Stephen Thorpe"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Oops, I
 see now that the paper is freely available! I was sure Rod
 said it wasn't! I still don't think that (m)any
 policy makers will take the time to read it though.
 On Mon, 14/12/15, Stephen Thorpe
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
 dragonflies      from    Africa
  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  Cc: "'taxacom'"
 <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:26 PM
  So, let me see if I get this right?
  Drawing people's attention to the things that really
  *in a paper which isn't open access*! That's some
  for saving the world ...
  On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
   Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
  dragonflies    from    Africa
   To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
   Cc: "'taxacom'"
 <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
   Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015, 6:14 PM
   Oh, and by the way... I
   spent a few hours going through the Odonata paper in
   detail yesterday and I have to say that, speaking as
   the 0.000002% of the world's population who is a
   taxonomist, I was extremely impressed with the quality
   the work (to whatever extent an ichthyologist can
   an entomological paper). Each species description
   several pages and includes robust information on
   context, material studied, both genetic and
   data, and range & ecology, and each description
   includes multiple figures (including color) and an
   section. The seven pages of introductory text are
   well-written and covers a wide range of important
   that we often ramble endlessly about here on Taxacom,
   as why naming species is important for conservation,
   taxonomy needs more support, and why species MATTER
   understanding history, environment, evolution, and for
   humanity).  So it seems to me that the authors did a
   job both scientifically, and from the perspective of
   people's attention to the issues that really
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
   > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:15
   > To: 'Stephen Thorpe';
 deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
   > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs
   names: 60 new dragonflies from
   > Rich,
   > I didn't say
   significance of the taxonomy TO WHOM! Also, I very
   > that policy-makers get their
   information from the popular media!
   > Stephen
   > On Mon, 14/12/15, Richard Pyle
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
   >  Subject:
   RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Nature needs names: 60 new
   dragonflies    from
   >     Africa
   >  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'"
   <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
   >  Received: Monday, 14 December, 2015,
   10:04 AM
   Sorry.... one more, then
   >  I'll
   shut up:
   >  >
   So, I
   >  was just suggesting that media
   coverage should be  proportional to the  >
   > significance of the  taxonomy, and
   elevating 60 new dragonflies out of all  >
   > proportion seems wrong to me.
   >  I would argue that
   >  coverage should be proportional
   to the likelihood that it  will actually influence
   > non-biologists (particularly 
   policy-makers).  There is a poor (perhaps even
   > inverse?)  correlation between what a
   good taxonomist will find of  significance,
   > and what will be significant to the rest
   of  the 99.999998% of the
   population.  We don't need the  media coverage
   inspire the ~15,000
   > taxonomists of
   the  world; it's the other 7 billion (ish) that
   we're  trying to
   > engage.
   >  Aloha,
   >  Rich
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list