[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Thu Oct 8 15:41:22 CDT 2015


Still, all these diversions aside, Stephen has never backed up his libel 
of the Code saying it was difficult to designate a Neotype. That is 
proven incorrect.  I am sure no one cares anymore.

Mike

On 10/8/2015 1:34 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> It is very curious the way that Mike has handled this thread - almost as if he was trying to set a trap for me! First off, he fixates on a vague and tangential comment I made about the Code making neotype designations "difficult". He interrogates me as to exactly why I think it is "difficult". When I reply with a request for him to provide an example, he leaves out a crucial passage. I explicitly state that I am basing my judgement on his example as presented by him, and I point out that the neotype designation, as presented by him, is invalid. He then tries desperately to save himself with some sort of inane sophistry along the lines of "lost" means "can't find it", so stating that something is lost is equivalent to statting a reason why one thinks it is lost (i.e. "I can't find it"). Finally, he provides the crucial missing passage, and then claims victory over me! Very odd indeed ...
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
>   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:27 PM
>
>   B. and W. (2007) list the type of
>   Bostrichus cephalotes Olivier to be in
>   the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, without
>   comment, but it
>   had already been reported lost by the curator of that
>   collection,
>   bostrichid specialist Pierre Lesne (Lesne 1905, 1909), and
>   was not
>   reported to have been seen by any other researcher,
>   including my failed
>   search for it on several visits to Paris. W. (in litt.)
>   confirmed that
>   the actual type was not seen to be there, therefore, the B.
>   and W.
>   (2007) reference is for where it should be, not where it
>   actually
>   resides. The collection of the King of France was one of the
>   collections
>   that formed the core of the Museum National d’Histoire
>   Naturelle in
>   Paris, so there is nowhere else to expect it. Thus, the type
>   of
>   Bostrichus cephalotes Olivier must be considered to be
>   lost.
>
>   On 10/7/2015 7:18 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>   > Just judging by the excerpt you quoted (I haven't
>   looked at the source publication), this neotype designation
>   fails
>   >
>   > 75.3.4. the author's reasons for believing the
>   name-bearing type specimen(s) (i.e. holotype, or lectotype,
>   or all syntypes, or prior neotype) to be lost or destroyed,
>   and the steps that had been taken to trace it or them;
>   >
>   > Stephen
>   >
>   > --------------------------------------------
>   > On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   >   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin
>   Fikacek resign
>   >   To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
>   "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
>   <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   >   Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015,
>   2:09 PM
>   >
>   >   Here is one such example
>   >   as you asked.  It is really very
>   simple
>   >   boilerplate from the Code
>   >
>   >   "The fact that the type was made up
>   of
>   >   pieces of multiple species does
>   >   not
>   >   invalidate the name (Art. 17.1), and
>   since the type is lost,
>   >   and the
>   >   name involved in taxonomic
>   >   confusion, a neotype is required (Art.
>   75).
>   >   The specimen here designated neotype
>   is a male
>   >   labeled “Rodrigues i.;
>   >   viii–xi.1918; H
>   >   J Snell &; H P Thomasset/ Percy
>   Sladen; Trust exped.;
>   >
>   >   Brit. Mus.; 1926-246/ NEOTYPE;
>   Bostrichus
>   >   cephalotes; Olivier 1790;
>   >   desg. M. A.
>   >   Ivie” and deposited in the Natural
>   History Museum, London.
>   >
>   >   The neotype is from a different place
>   than
>   >   the original type, but
>   >   because of a lack of
>   >   available specimens from Réunion, and
>   because this
>   >   African species was certainly
>   introduced to
>   >   that island from the
>   >   mainland, it is from a
>   >   neighboring island, as close to the
>   original type
>   >   locality as is practical. Under Art.
>   76.3, the
>   >   type locality is now
>   >   considered to be
>   >   Rodrigues Island.
>   >   This neotype is designated
>   >   for the express purpose of clarifying
>   the
>   >   taxonomic status and type locality.
>   The
>   >   characters that distinguish this
>   >   taxon are
>   >   those of Bostrychoplites cornutus
>   (Olivier) as given by
>   >   Lesne
>   >   (1899, 1929), Basilewski (1952) and
>   >   others. The sex of the neotype
>   >   differs from
>   >   that of the lost type, as allowed
>   under Art. 75.3.5,
>   >   because it is desirable to secure
>   stability of
>   >   nomenclature.
>   >   As such, Bostrichus cephalotes
>   >   Olivier 1790 is now to be considered
>   a
>   >   synonym."
>   >
>   >   Mike
>   >
>   >   On
>   >   10/7/2015 6:01 PM, Stephen Thorpe
>   wrote:
>   >   > Ah, Mike, my favourite sparring
>   partner!
>   >   Well, perhaps you could give me an
>   example of your attempts
>   >   to validly designate neotypes, and I
>   will then reconsider my
>   >   statement accordingly, though, please
>   bear in mind that
>   >   "difficult" is a vaguely defined
>   continuum, and I
>   >   didn't specify how difficult exactly.
>   At the very least,
>   >   Art. 75 of the Code is rather long
>   winded, and therefore
>   >   somewhat "difficult" to get one's head
>   around.
>   >   It could do with simplification.
>   >   >
>   >   > Stephen
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   > On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie
>   <mivie at montana.edu>
>   >   wrote:
>   >   >
>   >   >   Subject: Re:
>   [Taxacom] why
>   >   Martin Fikacek resign
>   >   >   To:
>   >   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   >   >   Received:
>   Thursday, 8
>   >   October, 2015, 12:06 PM
>   >   >
>   >   >   Stephen,
>   >   >
>   >   >   Please, explain
>   how
>   >   exactly
>   >   >   the Code makes
>   >   designating a needed Neotype
>   >   >   difficult?
>   I have done it
>   >   several times, and
>   >   >   it has
>   >   never been difficult.
>   >   >
>   >   >   Mike
>   >   >
>   >   >   On
>   >   >   10/7/2015 4:50
>   PM, Stephen
>   >   Thorpe wrote:
>   >   >   >
>   >   Incidentally, the only possible
>   problems
>   >   >   arising from the
>   description
>   >   of this fly are if there turns
>   >   >   out to be more
>   than one
>   >   externally identical species of such
>   >   >   fly, in
>   sympatry, with
>   >   different internal genitalia and/or
>   >   >   DNA. Then, we
>   can't ever
>   >   know which species was
>   >   >   described.
>   However, this is
>   >   essentially the same problem as
>   >   >   with early
>   descriptions by
>   >   Linnaeus, etc., where types no
>   >   >   longer exist.
>   The problem is
>   >   in principle rather easy to
>   >   >   solve with a
>   neotype, though
>   >   the current Code makes that
>   >   >   difficult. At
>   worst, one just
>   >   has to make a choice of which
>   >   >   species was
>   described, and
>   >   hopefully nobody else will insist
>   >   >   on a contrary
>   choice! The
>   >   Code really needs to try to make
>   >   >   potential
>   problems easily
>   >   solvable, rather then creating
>   >   >   problems!
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   Stephen
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   >   > On Thu,
>   8/10/15, Doug
>   >   Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
>   >   >   wrote:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Subject:
>   >   Re: [Taxacom] why
>   >   >   Martin
>   >   Fikacek resign
>   >   >   >   To:
>   >   >   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   >   >   >   Received:
>   >   Thursday, 8
>   >   >   October, 2015,
>   >   11:28 AM
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Martin:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   If
>   I might,
>   >   let me comment
>   >   >   on
>   >   >   >   a
>   few
>   >   things:
>   >   >   >   (1)
>   this
>   >   fly is not the
>   >   >   first
>   >   >   >   animal
>   >   species
>   >   >   described
>   solely
>   >   from a
>   >   >   >   photograph,
>   >   nor even the
>   >   >   first insect
>   >   (as far
>   >   >   >   as
>   I
>   >   >   can tell, that
>   honor
>   >   >   >   goes
>   >   >   to Bebearia
>   >   >   >   banksi,
>   >   a
>   >   >   nymphalid
>   described in
>   >   1998 - with thanks to
>   >   >   >   Cosmin
>   >   Manci for pointing
>   >   >   that
>   >   out to me), so
>   >   >   >   it
>   >   >   does not set a
>   >   >   >   precedent;
>   >   >   it is simply
>   >   >   >   one
>   of a
>   >   >   growing list.
>   >   >   >   (2)
>   the
>   >   >   authors did
>   >   >   >   not
>   attempt
>   >   to
>   >   >   conceal the
>   facts of
>   >   the case, or
>   >   >   >   (for
>   >   example) refer to a
>   >   >   deposited
>   specimen
>   >   >   >   which
>   >   >   never existed,
>   so the
>   >   >   >   work
>   >   >   cannot be
>   >   >   >   dismissed
>   >   as
>   >   >   fraudulent in
>   any
>   >   way.
>   >   >   >   (3)
>   >   >   if
>   >   >   >   you
>   are
>   >   concerned about
>   >   >   people
>   >   naming new species based on
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   limited
>   or
>   >   potentially
>   >   >   fabricated
>   >   evidence
>   >   >   >   even
>   >   >   though the Code
>   allows
>   >   >   >   for
>   >   >   it, then
>   >   >   >   why
>   not
>   >   submit a
>   >   >   letter to the
>   >   Commission (with a few
>   >   >   >   thousand
>   >   signatories,
>   >   >   preferably)
>   >   in favor of
>   >   >   >   amending
>   >   the Code in such
>   >   >   >   a
>   way as to
>   >   help
>   >   >   >   prevent
>   >   what you see as being
>   >   >   abusive? For
>   example,
>   >   >   >   establishing
>   >   a strict set of
>   >   >   guidelines
>   >   for
>   >   >   >   public
>   >   >   review of
>   taxonomic
>   >   >   >   works,
>   >   >   which
>   >   >   >   must
>   be met
>   >   before a
>   >   >   name will be
>   >   considered available
>   >   >   >   under
>   the
>   >   Code, rather than
>   >   >   simply
>   >   accepting as
>   >   >   >   available
>   >   virtually
>   >   >   >   anything
>   >   that meets the
>   >   >   >   Code's
>   >   definition of
>   >   >   "published"? I
>   and
>   >   others
>   >   >   >   -
>   >   >   >   including
>   >   other Commissioners
>   >   >   - have
>   >   been
>   >   >   >   advocating
>   >   >   this sort of
>   change
>   >   >   >   for
>   >   >   years
>   >   >   >   now,
>   and
>   >   oddly there
>   >   >   seems to be
>   >   little public support for
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   such
>   >   measures. Would you not
>   >   >   like to be
>   >   >   >   able
>   to
>   >   cast a
>   >   >   vote for or
>   >   >   >   against
>   >   any
>   >   >   >   given
>   >   proposed new name
>   >   >   BEFORE
>   >   being compelled to recognize
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   it?
>   [Case
>   >   in point: had such
>   >   >   a
>   >   mechanism
>   >   >   >   existed,
>   >   I
>   >   >   would have
>   voted
>   >   >   >   against
>   >   >   >   Bebearia
>   >   banksi, and in favor
>   >   >   of
>   >   Marleyimyia xylocopae]
>   >   >   >   (4)
>   if you
>   >   are specifically
>   >   >   concerned
>   >   with
>   >   >   >   issues
>   >   of
>   >   >   quality control
>   in
>   >   >   >   the
>   >   >   editorial
>   >   >   >   process
>   >   at
>   >   >   Zookeys, then I
>   might
>   >   think you'd have a
>   >   >   >   better
>   >   >   >   chance
>   of
>   >   effecting change
>   >   >   by
>   >   >   >   remaining
>   >   within the
>   >   >   system, and
>   >   pushing
>   >   >   >   for
>   a
>   >   >   dialogue on
>   editorial policy
>   >   there,
>   >   >   >   rather
>   than
>   >   resigning your
>   >   >   >   post.
>   That
>   >   is,
>   >   >   >   admittedly,
>   >   just my two cents
>   >   >   as an
>   >   outsider.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   As
>   I've
>   >   noted
>   >   >   elsewhere,
>   >   >   >   this
>   >   particular
>   >   >   case was
>   >   well-documented, and
>   >   >   >   passed
>   what
>   >   I assume to be a
>   >   >   rigorous
>   >   >   >   peer-review
>   >   >   process. The
>   authors
>   >   >   >   made
>   >   >   a
>   >   >   >   compelling
>   >   case that
>   >   >   this is a new
>   >   taxon, at the very least,
>   >   >   >   and
>   >   >   >   that
>   is
>   >   more than I can say
>   >   >   for
>   >   many
>   >   >   >   other
>   >   recent
>   >   >   taxonomic works
>   >   I've
>   >   >   >   seen
>   >   >   >   for
>   which
>   >   type specimens DO
>   >   >   exist. I
>   >   rather suspect that the
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   editors
>   and
>   >   reviewers were
>   >   >   entirely
>   >   >   >   prepared
>   >   to
>   >   >   reject this
>   paper had
>   >   it
>   >   >   >   not
>   >   >   >   appeared
>   to
>   >   be a "safe
>   >   >   bet"
>   >   to them, and therefore
>   >   >   >   would
>   not
>   >   judge
>   >   >   >   them
>   as
>   >   harshly as you
>   >   >   >   appear
>   to
>   >   be doing. Had this
>   >   >   work
>   >   been authored
>   >   >   >   by
>   >   >   someone with no
>   credentials,
>   >   in a journal
>   >   >   >   with
>   no
>   >   peer review, I
>   >   >   >   would
>   >   probably be
>   >   >   >   condemning
>   >   it, as well; but
>   >   >   the Code
>   >   does not allow us
>   >   >   >   to
>   judge
>   >   cases by their
>   >   >   merits
>   >   before accepting
>   >   >   >   new
>   names,
>   >   just by
>   >   >   >   compliance
>   >   or lack
>   >   >   >   thereof,
>   >   and at times this
>   >   >   can be a
>   >   problem. If we as
>   >   >   >   a
>   community
>   >   are concerned
>   >   >   about
>   >   possible abuses
>   >   >   >   of
>   >   >   the Code, and we
>   WANT
>   >   >   >   to
>   >   >   judge cases
>   >   >   >   based
>   on
>   >   their
>   >   >   merits, then
>   the
>   >   solution is to change the
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   system
>   -
>   >   specifically, such
>   >   >   that
>   >   good
>   >   >   >   science
>   >   will
>   >   >   flourish, /and
>   bad
>   >   >   >   science
>   >   >   >   will
>   be
>   >   rejected/. That much
>   >   >   is in
>   >   our power, it just takes
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   will,
>   >   commitment, and
>   >   >   consensus.
>   >   Perhaps
>   >   >   >   some
>   >   >   day there will
>   be a
>   >   >   >   critical
>   >   mass of
>   >   >   >   taxonomists
>   >   who are fed up
>   >   >   enough to
>   >   push for this sort
>   >   >   >   of
>   change,
>   >   but I've been
>   >   >   pushing
>   >   for 20
>   >   >   >   years
>   >   now,
>   >   >   and it still
>   seems
>   >   to
>   >   >   >   be
>   >   >   all
>   >   >   >   uphill.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Sincerely,
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   --
>   >   >   >   Doug
>   >   >   >   Yanega
>   >     Dept. of
>   >   >   Entomology
>   >   >   >
>       Entomology
>   >   Research
>   >   >   Museum
>   >   >   >   Univ.
>   of
>   >   >   California,
>   Riverside, CA
>   >   92521-0314
>   >   >   >
>   >   >
>      skype: dyanega
>   >   >   >   phone:
>   >   (951)
>   >   >   >   827-4315
>   >   (disclaimer:
>   >   >   opinions are
>   >   mine, not UCR's)
>   >   >   >
>   >   >
>   >
>      http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   >   >   >
>       "There are
>   >   some
>   >   >   enterprises
>   >   >   >   in
>   which
>   >   a
>   >   >   careful
>   >   disorderliness
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>       is the true
>   >   method" - Herman
>   >   >   Melville,
>   >   >   >   Moby
>   Dick,
>   >   Chap.
>   >   >   82
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   _______________________________________________
>   >   >   >   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
>   >   28 years of
>   >   >   >   Taxacom
>   in
>   >   2015.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   _______________________________________________
>   >   >   > 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
>   28 years
>   >   >   of Taxacom in
>   2015.
>   >   >
>   >   >   --
>   >   >   __________________________________________________
>   >   >
>   >   >   Michael A. Ivie,
>   Ph.D.,
>   >   >   F.R.E.S.
>   >   >
>   >   >   Montana
>   Entomology
>   >   >   Collection
>   >   >   Marsh Labs, Room
>   50
>   >   >   1911 West
>   Lincoln Street
>   >   >   NW
>   >   >   corner of
>   Lincoln and
>   >   S.19th
>   >   >   Montana State
>   >   >   University
>   >   >   Bozeman, MT
>   59717
>   >   >   USA
>   >   >
>   >   >   (406)
>   >   >   994-4610
>   (voice)
>   >   >   (406) 994-6029
>   (FAX)
>   >   >   mivie at montana.edu
>   >   >
>   >   >   _______________________________________________
>   >   >   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 28
>   years of
>   >   >   Taxacom in
>   2015.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > .
>   >   >
>   >
>   >   --
>   >   __________________________________________________
>   >
>   >   Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
>   >   F.R.E.S.
>   >
>   >   Montana Entomology
>   >   Collection
>   >   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   >   1911 West Lincoln Street
>   >   NW
>   >   corner of Lincoln and S.19th
>   >   Montana State
>   >   University
>   >   Bozeman, MT 59717
>   >   USA
>   >
>   >   (406)
>   >   994-4610 (voice)
>   >   (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>   >   mivie at montana.edu
>   >
>   >
>
>   --
>   __________________________________________________
>
>   Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
>   Montana Entomology Collection
>   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   1911 West Lincoln Street
>   NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
>   Montana State University
>   Bozeman, MT 59717
>   USA
>
>   (406) 994-4610 (voice)
>   (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>   mivie at montana.edu
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   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 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu





More information about the Taxacom mailing list