[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Oct 8 16:13:12 CDT 2015


That is a fair assessment, Scott. I didn't specify how "difficult", after all. Given that some taxonomists fail to properly follow other, realtively simpler, Code requirements (e.g. statements of deposition of holotypes, etc.), I think it is fair to assume that some will struggle with neotypes, thus making this part of the Code relatively "difficult". However, I have no desire to continue debating "how long is a piece of string", i.e. how "difficult" is "difficult", however strong Mike's views are on the subject.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/10/15, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, mivie at montana.edu
 Received: Friday, 9 October, 2015, 9:59 AM
 
 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 PauloDivisão de Vertebrados
 (Herpetologia)
 Avenida Nazaré,
 481, Ipiranga04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
 Brasilhttp://www.carettochelys.com
 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728Skype:
 FaendalimasMobile Phone: +55 11
 974 74 9095
 
 
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list