[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Oct 8 15:47:16 CDT 2015


I don't know how Mike can claim to have refuted the alleged "difficulty", when this is a vague notion. Mike might not find it to be at all difficult, but this isn't all about him. I wonder if those who give out NSF grants are all bullish "I'm right, even when I'm wrong" types??

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/10/15, 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: Friday, 9 October, 2015, 9:41 AM
 
 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
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list