[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Fri Oct 9 17:33:06 CDT 2015


Yeah, you do that!


On 10/9/2015 4:31 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> So, you can't let it go then! Tell you what, I'll quit while I'm ahead ...
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 10/10/15, 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: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 11:17 AM
>
>   The discussion with John Noyes had
>   nothing to do with the designation of
>   a Neotype, it was about when a Neotype is allowed. Apples
>   and Oranges.
>   Simply, if this is difficult for you, you should leave it to
>   those
>   better able to handle it.  The proof of this is that I
>   have done it
>   repeatedly, my actions have been cleared pre-publication by
>   multiple
>   current and past Commissioners, and it was not difficult
>   (exacting, yes,
>   difficult, no).
>
>   Mike
>
>   On 10/9/2015 4:12 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>   > I hate attention, but I feel obliged to try to carry a
>   debate through to a reasonably satisfactory outcome.
>   >
>   > Mike said [quote]They are not difficult for a
>   reasonably intelligent person qualified to be handling
>   nomenclatural maters [sic!] who can read ... [unquote]
>   >
>   > Easy to say, as a device of rhetoric, but prove it!
>   We've already seen the very intelligent and excellent
>   taxonomist John Noyes make a statement about neotypes which
>   you quite rightly corrected.
>   >
>   > Face it Mike, you are trying to refute something which
>   actually has very little precise meaning (i.e. that
>   designating neotypes is, in some unspecified sense,
>   "difficult"). If you set the unspecified level of difficulty
>   too high, then it is too easy to refute, and if I set it too
>   low, then it is too easy to defend! The argument has become
>   pure rhetoric! Let it go, if you can ...
>   >
>   > Stephen
>   >
>   > --------------------------------------------
>   > On Sat, 10/10/15, 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: Saturday, 10 October, 2015,
>   10:48 AM
>   >
>   >   [sigh]  It is not
>   >   difficult, but you do have to follow
>   the strictures in
>   >   the Code.  Think of those
>   strictures more as a
>   >   road map to success than
>   >   difficult
>   >   barriers.  They are not difficult
>   for a reasonably
>   >   intelligent
>   >   person qualified to be handling
>   >   nomenclatural maters who can read
>   either
>   >   the Official English or French
>   versions of the
>   >   Code, or one of the
>   >   unofficial translations
>   >   into Chinese (Simplified), Chinese
>   >   (Traditional), Czech, German, Greek,
>   Japanese,
>   >   Russian or Spanish.
>   >
>   >   Further, the issue of whether it is
>   difficult
>   >   to DESIGNATE a Neotype is
>   >   separate from
>   >   whether or not a Neotype is allowed,
>   which is what John
>   >   and I were discussing.  But, that
>   is not hard
>   >   either.
>   >
>   >   Exceptional (def.)
>   >   adjective, unusual; not typical.
>   >
>   >   Clear to those who want it to be,
>   perhaps not
>   >   to those who want attention.
>   >
>   >   Mike
>   >
>   >   On
>   >   10/9/2015 3:00 PM, Stephen Thorpe
>   wrote:
>   >   > All of which further proves my
>   point that
>   >   the Code requirements for neotypes are
>   somewhat
>   >   "difficult", or else we wouldn't be
>   having
>   >   such divergent opinions offered from
>   veteran
>   >   entomologists!
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   Q.E.D.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   > On Sat, 10/10/15, Michael A. Ivie
>   <mivie at montana.edu>
>   >   wrote:
>   >   >
>   >   >   Subject: Re:
>   [Taxacom] why
>   >   Martin Fikacek resign
>   >   >   To:
>   >   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   >   >   Received:
>   Saturday, 10
>   >   October, 2015, 6:47 AM
>   >   >
>   >   >   Dear John,
>   >   >
>   >   >   That (a
>   >   Neotype) would only be
>   >   >   valid if there
>   is some
>   >   confusion about
>   >   >   the
>   >   >   identity.
>   The Code does not
>   >   allow Neotypes in cases where
>   >   >   there is
>   >   >   no confusion
>   about what
>   >   the
>   >   >   species
>   is.  In this
>   >   case there is nothing
>   >   >   known that is
>   even close to
>   >   it, so its identity
>   >   >   is not
>   >   confused.  The
>   >   >   authors
>   >   covered that
>   >   >   well in the
>   >   description.
>   >   >
>   >   >   Mike
>   >   >
>   >   >   On
>   >   >   10/9/2015 3:30
>   AM, John Noyes
>   >   wrote:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   Hi,
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > It seems
>   that
>   >   >   in this case it
>   should be
>   >   possible to designate a neotype
>   >   >   from an extant,
>   preserved
>   >   specimen. So muDear ch the better
>   >   >   if the neotype
>   is the
>   >   holotype of a previously described
>   >   >   species so that
>   the
>   >   "new" species can be treated
>   >   >   as a junior
>   synonym [although
>   >   in this particular case that
>   >   >   seems unlikely].
>   It can be
>   >   safely assumed that the
>   >   >   photographed
>   holotype no
>   >   longer exists. So long as the
>   >   >   specimen
>   designated as
>   >   neotype is pretty damned similar to
>   >   >   the one in the
>   photograph and
>   >   all other conditions of
>   >   >   designating a
>   neotype are met
>   >   according to the ICZN then I
>   >   >   cannot see a
>   problem.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Maybe that
>   is too
>   >   mischievous??
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > John
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > John Noyes
>   >   >   > Scientific
>   Associate
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   Department of
>   Life
>   >   Sciences
>   >   >   > Natural
>   >   >   History Museum
>   >   >   > Cromwell
>   Road
>   >   >   > South
>   Kensington
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   London SW7 5BD
>   >   >   > UK
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   jsn at nhm.ac.uk
>   >   >   > Tel.: +44
>   (0) 207 942
>   >   5594
>   >   >   > Fax.: +44
>   (0)
>   >   207 942 5229
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Universal
>   >   >   Chalcidoidea
>   Database
>   >   (everything you wanted to know about
>   >   >   chalcidoids and
>   more):
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   -----Original
>   >   Message-----
>   >   >   > From:
>   >   Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>   >   >   On Behalf Of
>   Stephen
>   >   Thorpe
>   >   >   > Sent: 07
>   >   >   October 2015
>   21:04
>   >   >   > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>   >   >   bayshark at exemail.com.au
>   >   >   > Cc: penev at pensoft.net
>   >   >   > Subject:
>   Re: [Taxacom]
>   >   why Martin Fikacek
>   >   >   resign
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > I'm
>   >   >   sure that people
>   are playing
>   >   right into Lyubo's hands by
>   >   >   adding to the
>   publicity about
>   >   this (any publicity is good
>   >   >   publicity!)
>   Pensoft are a
>   >   commercial publisher. I have
>   >   >   pretty much
>   given up on them
>   >   as well, largely because
>   >   >   Biodiversity
>   Data Journal has
>   >   now become little more than a
>   >   >   venue for
>   promotional papers,
>   >   miles away from its initially
>   >   >   stated
>   philosophy.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   Nevertheless,
>   many of the
>   >   reasons cited against describing
>   >   >   new species from
>   photos are
>   >   quite unconvincing. Why is
>   >   >   palaeontology
>   considered to
>   >   be science? An impression in
>   >   >   rock, or a
>   partly obscured
>   >   amber inclusion are both on a par
>   >   >   with a
>   photograph, given that
>   >   you can't see all the
>   >   >   relevant
>   characters, you
>   >   can't dissect, and you
>   >   >   can't extract
>   DNA (most
>   >   of the time).
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > It would be
>   a very
>   >   >   bad idea to
>   describe a new
>   >   species of hydrophilid beetle
>   >   >   (Martin
>   Fikacek's
>   >   speciality) from photograph(s) of a
>   >   >   live specimen,
>   but this may
>   >   not apply equally to other
>   >   >   groups of
>   organisms.
>   >   Iterestingly, Fikacek does describe
>   >   >   fossil
>   hydrophilids!
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > One thing,
>   however, that
>   >   Marshall &
>   >   >   Evenhuis
>   >   did misinterpret from the Code relates
>   to
>   >   >   "Designation of
>   an
>   >   illustration of a single specimen as
>   >   >   a holotype is to
>   be treated
>   >   as designation of the specimen
>   >   >   illustrated".
>   This is
>   >   actually quite irrelevant!
>   >   >   Designating a
>   specimen as
>   >   holotype via a photograph, is what
>   >   >   Marshall &
>   Evenhuis have
>   >   done. This is very different
>   >   >   from designating
>   a photograph
>   >   of a specimen as holotype! The
>   >   >   above quote from
>   the Code
>   >   simply reduces the latter to the
>   >   >   former, but that
>   is
>   >   irrelevant here.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > As for
>   Vratislav's
>   >   P.S.: >If this
>   >   >   will
>   >   continue, anybody can create not just
>   new species, but
>   >   >   complete new
>   family using
>   >   just Photoshop.<
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Anybody can
>   and
>   >   >   always could do
>   effectively
>   >   that anyway. Write a verbal
>   >   >   description
>   based on
>   >   fictional characters, maybe add a few
>   >   >   fanciful
>   drawings, and
>   >   conveniently claim the holotype to
>   >   >   have been
>   subsequently lost.
>   >   Lost holotypes do not
>   >   >   invalidate
>   described taxa.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Stephen
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   >   > On Wed,
>   7/10/15, bayshark at exemail.com.au
>   >   >   <bayshark at exemail.com.au>
>   >   >   wrote:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Subject:
>   >   [Taxacom] why Martin
>   >   >   Fikacek resign
>   >   >   >   To:
>   taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   >   >   >   Received:
>   >   Wednesday, 7
>   >   >   October,
>   >   2015, 9:44 PM
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   https://www.facebook.com/martin.fikacek.7/posts/10206448754731807
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   I
>   just
>   >   >   resigned for the
>   position of
>   >   editor in ZooKeys for  two
>   >   >   reasons:
>   by  the recent
>   >   publication of a description of a
>   >   >   new
>   species  based on
>   >   photos  ZooKeys evidently
>   decided
>   >   >   for the
>   direction of
>   >   "bad science  and good
>   >   >   publicity" which
>   is the
>   >   direction I cannot support.
>   >   >   In
>   addition, they
>   >   recently introduced a new automatic
>   >   >   system
>   >   "bullying"
>   >   >   >   editors,
>   >   which now
>   >   >   >   makes
>   >   editors basically
>   >   >   non-paid
>   >   slaves with very limited
>   decision power. I
>   >   >   simply cannot
>   work for such a
>   >   journal anymore. Sorry to
>   >   >   everybody,
>   and  thanks for
>   >   years of author-editor
>   >   >   cooperation.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   My
>   >   >   letter to
>   editors is attached
>   >   below:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Dear
>   >   editors,
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   I
>   was
>   >   >   really shocked
>   when I
>   >   discovered the paper entitled
>   >   >   "New
>   species  without
>   >   dead bodies: a case for
>   >   >   photobased
>   descriptions,
>   >   illustrated by a  striking new
>   >   >   species of
>   Marleyimyia Hesse
>   >   (Diptera,
>   >   >   >   Bombyliidae)
>   >   from South
>   >   >   >   Africa"
>   >   published few
>   >   >   days ago in
>   >   ZooKeys. The paper is  exremely
>   dangerous  for
>   >   >   several
>   aspects:
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   (1)
>   It
>   >   misuses the weak parts
>   >   >   of
>   >   the Code which were  originally
>   designed to  keep some
>   >   >   very old names
>   valid, which
>   >   were described in  historical
>   >   >   publications
>   mostly in 18th
>   >   century. In difference to what
>   >   >   the authors
>   are  writing in
>   >   the paper, this Article was not
>   >   >   designed to
>   solve  the
>   >   situation  with lost holotypes,
>   but
>   >   >   to keep valid
>   the names which
>   >   were  really based  only on
>   >   >   illustrations in
>   times when
>   >   no rules were given as  it
>   >   >   concerns
>   the  quality of
>   >   taxonomic descriptions. Using the
>   >   >   same
>   Article  for today is
>   >   really ridiculous attempt to
>   >   >   use this Article
>   to cheat
>   >   the  system. Moreover,  note
>   the
>   >   >   word
>   "illustration"
>   >   in the text of the Article
>   >   >   (i.e. NOT a
>   >   >   >   photograph!!!)
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   (2)
>   It
>   >   >   makes a very
>   dangerous
>   >   precedence for future
>   generations.
>   >   >   Now
>   everybody may try to
>   >   describe a new big insect
>   >   >   (cetonid
>   beetle, wasp,
>   >   >   >   butterfly)
>   >   based just on the
>   >   >   photographs. I
>   am sure good
>   >   entomologists will  not do
>   >   >   that, or would
>   at least do
>   >   that only once all needed
>   >   >   characters
>   are  really
>   >   visible. Unfortunately the
>   >   >   entomology is
>   full of  crazy
>   >   individuals  focused only in
>   >   >   describing new
>   taxa and
>   >   producing new names,  no need to
>   >   >   give
>   examples as everybody
>   >   knows some of them. These
>   >   >   individuals
>   were
>   >   difficult  to deal with even
>   until now,
>   >   >   basically
>   producing chaos
>   >   in  taxonomy of  particular
>   >   >   group and partly
>   causing that
>   >   taxonomy is often  considered
>   >   >   as
>   non-scientific. You now
>   >   opened a brand new way for
>   >   >   these
>   people how to do
>   >   even worse work!
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   (3)
>   In
>   >   >   my opinion
>   neither the
>   >   authors of the above paper,  nor
>   the
>   >   >   editorial
>   board is
>   >   evidently not aware of the reason why
>   >   >   voucher
>   specimen
>   >   (holotype)  is needed when a
>   species is
>   >   >   describe. It is
>   not because
>   >   the  author should  have it
>   >   >   easy to
>   illustrate all needed
>   >   characters. It it  because
>   >   >   only the
>   specimen itself
>   >   form a firm base for the name.
>   >   >   All
>   taxonomic  work,
>   >   identification of next specimens
>   >   >   found etc. is in
>   fact
>   >   testing the  hypothesis that the
>   >   >   specimens in
>   your hand are
>   >   conspecific  with the
>   >   >   holotype.
>   To test that
>   >   hypothesis, you may re-examine
>   >   >   the holotype,
>   extract  new
>   >   characters which were not stated
>   >   >   or illustrated
>   in the
>   >   original  description etc.
>   Testing
>   >   >   the hypothesis
>   and providing
>   >   the  way how to falsify  it
>   >   >   is what makes
>   taxonomy a
>   >   science! In case of the new
>   South
>   >   >   African
>   species, nothing of
>   >   this is possible - nobody will
>   >   >   ever be
>   able to test the
>   >   hypothesis that the specimens
>   >   >   in hand are
>   conspecific
>   >   with  the holotype (and  no
>   other
>   >   >   characters will
>   be ever known
>   >   than those  illustrated on
>   >   >   the
>   photos). This basically
>   >   moves this paper (and taxonomy
>   >   >   in
>   >   >   >   general)
>   >   REALLY
>   >   >   >   OUT
>   OF
>   >   SCIENCE. Hence, this
>   >   >   is a
>   >   step backward, not an  innovative
>   way as you  present
>   >   >   it.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   I
>   >   >   appreciate the
>   effort of
>   >   Pensoft and ZooKeys to try
>   >   >   innovative ways
>   of
>   >   taxonomic publishing. However, I
>   would
>   >   >   expect that you
>   would  think
>   >   about  your steps and
>   >   >   decision
>   properly, evaluating
>   >   the possible  risks of such
>   >   >   steps for the
>   future of
>   >   taxonomy. I did not notice
>   >   >   anything
>   like that in
>   >   your actions and decisions within
>   >   >   last months,
>   including the
>   >   publication of  the above
>   >   >   paper. Editorial
>   board is
>   >   never consulted in such  cases,
>   >   >   and if  the
>   editors provide
>   >   their critique, this is rarely
>   >   >   followed.
>   >   >   >   In
>   >   opposite,
>   >   >   >   you
>   >   recently introduced a
>   >   >   system of
>   >   "bullying" the editors.
>   >   >   >   I
>   >   understand all
>   >   >   >   these
>   >   actions in the way that
>   >   >   editors are just
>   workers
>   >   you  use FOR FREE (we  are
>   not
>   >   >   paid for that),
>   but never as
>   >   partners with whom
>   >   >   problematic
>   things  should
>   >   be discussed.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   To
>   sum
>   >   >   up - by
>   publishing the
>   >   photo-based description of
>   >   >   Marleyimyia,
>   ZooKeys moves
>   >   into the position of journals
>   >   >   trying to
>   break  up the
>   >   good  practices in taxonomy for
>   >   >   the sake of
>   publicity. Its
>   >   not  only "the border of
>   >   >   taxonomic
>   malpractice",
>   >   it is in fact the "border
>   >   >   of
>   non-science". I do
>   >   not  want to provide my time
>   >   >   to the journal
>   going in this
>   >   really  dangerous
>   direction.
>   >   >   That is why I am
>   resigning
>   >   immediatelly from the  editorial
>   >   >   board  of
>   ZooKeys.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Thanks
>   for
>   >   understanding!
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   With
>   >   >   best regards
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Martin
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   Vratislav
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   (name)
>   >   >   Vratislav
>   Richard Eugene
>   >   Maria John Baptist
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   (surname)
>   >   of Bejšák (read
>   >   >   as a
>   >   >   >   Bayshark)-Colloredo-Mansfeld
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   website:
>   >   >   www.coleoptera.org
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   address:
>   >   P.O.Box 3335 ,
>   >   >   Redfern,
>   >   NSW 2016  AUSTRALIA
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   phone
>   : +61
>   >   0420602040
>   >   >   >   http://www.facebook.com/bayshark
>   >   >   >   alternate
>   >   email: bayshark at ymail.com
>   >   >   >   (to
>   >   iPhone)
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >   _______________________________________________
>   >   >   >   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.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   _______________________________________________
>   >   >   > 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
>
>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

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