[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Scott Thomson scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 15:59:59 CDT 2015


My own view on Neotypes is that they are "more" difficult to set than a
holotype in the original description in that the neeotype reqires more
information to be provided as outlined in the code, eg an explanation of
why, and what evidence the holotype is lost, justification for the neotypes
locality, etc. All of which are basically ensuring its a valid replacement
for the lost holotype and its being done for a good reason. I do not think
this makes them particularly difficult to set, you just have to do the work
to get the required information to make the case. However I would
acknowledge there is more to it than the holotype.

Cheers, Scott

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095



More information about the Taxacom mailing list