[Taxacom] another ebay auction of naming rights The Last Word
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Oct 29 08:57:48 CDT 2015
All of this seems a bit strange as it would seem that to be consistent, the
Parks Service should not agree to collecting and taxonomy by anyone
employed since it could be seen the the Park Service that they are
contributing to the professional's income by providing a work resource for
which the professional is deriving income by virtue of being employed for
the purpose of that work(I hope that does not sound too convoluted).
Also there was reference to the National Park owning the specimens, but is
that correct or is it the Federal Government who owns the specimen? And if
it is the latter, how owns the Federal Government (perhaps better not to
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, <metzlere at msu.edu> wrote:
> Karl wrote: The quid pro quo part makes a sort of a sense, presumably to
> avoid the appearance of "commerce", though arguably that could prevent
> crowdfunding even if you're only providing access to results as they come
> just as you would make reports to any other funding organization. But not
> being able to approach anyone else for funds without strings attached seems
> arbitrary and unenforceable, and would prohibit any kind of crowdfunding.
> Eric replies: I never thought to ask about crowdfunding. A few folks in
> New Mexico who support my work have made personal contributions of small
> amounts. When I started to mention this to the National Park Service they
> plug their ears and immediately change the subject. They did not want to
> hear about it, therefore I am led to believe crowdfunding would not pass
> These are good questions; thanks.
> Cheers, Eric
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom