[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 16:21:21 CST 2016


Rich,

You are not being true to what I wrote. I have already stated that I have nothing deserving of the label "conspiracy theory". I am simply sticking to the facts of what is, when all said and done, a pretty obvious case of COI. The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a 100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative models; and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a significant input into the Amendment. So you are saying that is mere "coincidence", are you? What is your explanation? In the sense that I was meaning, EVERY commissioner had "inside knowledge" of the amendment (because they were the ones developing it, for God's sake!) This makes no difference EXCEPT if a commissioner is also a stakeholder in a relevant publishing company. Then they know in advance what to expect from the Amendment, can gain clarifications, and can lobby for changes which are in the interests of that publishing company (and possibly not in the interests of zoological nomenclature as a whole). Again, how did we end up in a situation whereby the Amendment is a 100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative models? Either answer me with a plausible explanation, or shut up accusing me of "conspiracy theories". 

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:49 AM
 
 Stephen,
 
 I was in the room when the original outline for the
 Amendment was drafted.  So was Frank. So were most ICZN
 Commissioners of the time. So were several other
 non-Commissioners.  You were not in the room. 
 Moreover, for nearly FOUR YEARS the public had access to the
 draft Amendment before it was ratified. Many comments were
 received, and the Amendment was modified in response to
 those Comments.  Throughout that entire Process,
 Zhi-Qiang had precisely the same influence over the shaping
 of the Amendment wording as every other Commissioner. 
 I was very actively involved with the discussions concerning
 the drafting and re-drafting of the Amendment wording, both
 in public forums and in private ICZN discussions. 
 Zhi-Qiang, like all Commissioners and like many
 non-commissioners, provided valuable suggestions and
 insights into the drafting and re-drafting of the Amendment.
 At no time was there any discussion that in any way favored
 one publishing model over another, especially not from
 Zhi-Qiang.  There was nothing in the Amendment related
 to publishing models that was not openly available to the
 general public for years prior to the final ratification.
 Therefore, it is not possible that any Commissioner had any
 sort of "inside knowledge" of what was going to result from
 the Amendment, any more-so than any member of the public. As
 Frank indicated, many other publishers were consulted
 throughout the entire process.
 
 As Frank suggested, I doubt you will ever change your
 opinions about the validity of you conspiracy theories, no
 matter how demonstrably wrong they are.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich
 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 11:27 AM
 > To: Stephen Thorpe; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
 > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 'Doug Yanega'; Frank T. Krell
 > Cc: 'engel'
 > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names
 online published - one
 > new species
 > 
 > Other publishers were no doubt consulted to some
 extent, yes. Neverthless,
 > we have ended up in a situation whereby the electronic
 amendment is
 > optimised to the Zootaxa publishing model, and many
 other publishers fall
 > into a messy and indeterminate basket. Note that the
 Zootaxa publishing
 > model wasn't created so as to be fully Code compliant
 with the electronic
 > amendment. The Zootaxa model predates the amendment by
 several years.
 > At the very least, Zhang had inside knowledge of what
 was going to result
 > from the amendment well ahead of time, and thereby had
 an advantage over
 > other publishers.
 > 
 > These are facts Frank. I cannot be wrong. Not unless
 you can offer a
 > convincing alternative explanation as to why the
 electronic amendment fits
 > Zootaxa hand in glove, while other publishers are left
 in a gray zone. Well?
 > 
 > Stephen
 > 
 > --------------------------------------------
 > On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 wrote:
 > 
 >  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two
 names online published -
 > one    new species
 >  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 > "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
 > "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "'Doug
 > Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >  Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 >  Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 10:16 AM
 > 
 >  To you. But you are
 >  wrong. You won't be convinced otherwise, so it
 is  useless to repeat that
 > other publishers were consulted  etc.
 >  You believe what you want anyway.
 >  Frank
 > 
 >  -----Original Message-----
 >  From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > 
 >  Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 2:11 PM
 >  To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
 > deepreef at bishopmuseum.orgtaxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 
 'Doug
 > Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>; 
 Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 >  Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
 >  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
 two  names online published -
 > one new species
 > 
 >  Frank,
 > 
 >  Zootaxa
 >  is very relevant to this whole thread and
 wider  discussion.
 > 
 >  Fact (1): there
 >  are significant problems with the electronic
 amendment (no,  the sky isn't
 > falling down, people aren't running  for the hills
 in droves, etc., but in the
 > context of  zoological nomenclature there are
 significant problems),  none of
 > which affect the Zootaxa publishing model.
 > 
 >  Fact (2): the owner of Zootaxa
 >  is a prominent member of the ICZN who had a
 significant part  to play in the
 > development of the electronic amendment.
 > 
 >  Now, you can claim, if you
 >  really want to, that facts (1) and (2) are
 independent,  coincidence, or
 > whatever, but to me it looks like a classic  case
 of a COI. The best interests of
 > zoological nomenclature  as a whole are not
 necessarily the best interests of
 > Zootaxa  in particular. You make yourself look
 foolish if you refuse  to
 > acknowledge the problem here. You might claim that
 the  COI is outweighed
 > by other more important factors (like,  maybe,
 keeping the ICZN viable and
 > running), but it is  really self-evident that the
 electronic amendment was
 > optimised for the Zootaxa publishing model and to hell
 with  any other
 > alternative. There is no room for doubt regarding 
 the Code compliance of
 > Zootaxa articles, but articles from  many other
 publishers are very much in
 > the "how liberal  do you feel" bucket, and it
 isn't going to be long  before
 > taxonomists start renaming taxa already named by 
 others in these dubiously
 > valid publications (just like  Scott Thomson
 renames taxa from Australasian
 > Journal of  Herpetology). All this is not good! It
 isn't a corrupt  conspiracy, or
 > anything of the sort. It is just not good for 
 zoological nomenclature, not
 > good for taxonomy, and not good  for science.
 > 
 >  Stephen
 > 
 >  --------------------------------------------
 >  On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 >  wrote:
 > 
 >   Subject: RE:
 >  [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online
 published -  one    new
 > species
 >   To: "Stephen
 >  Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 >  "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
 >  <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
 >  "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 >  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 >  "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >   Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 >   Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016,
 9:40 AM
 > 
 >   As expected.
 >   Still being pragmatic.
 >   And
 >   Zootaxa again, out of context, but in
 your  mind all the  time.
 > 
 > 
 >  Frank
 > 
 >   -----Original
 >  Message-----
 >   From: Stephen Thorpe
 >  [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 > 
 >   Sent: Sunday, January 24,
 >  2016 1:37 PM
 >   To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
 >   'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
 > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 
 'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>; 
 Frank
 > T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 >   Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
 >   Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note
 Re:
 >  two  names online published - one new
 species
 > 
 >   Frank,
 > 
 >   That is
 >   a pretty darn liberal
 >  reinterpretation of:
 > 
 > 
 >  8.5.3.1. The entry in the
 >   Official Register
 >  of Zoological Nomenclature must give the 
 name and Internet  address of an
 > organization other than the  publisher that 
 is intended to permanently
 > archive the work  in a manner  that preserves
 the content and layout, and
 > is  capable of  doing so. This information is
 not required to  appear in  the
 > work itself.
 > 
 >   If we
 >  allow such dizzying levels of liberality, 
 then it is  pretty much "anything
 > goes"! Besides,  publishing  with a publisher
 that still prints hard
 > copies  effectively  IS archiving, but the
 Code is clearly not  concerned with
 > "effectively", and it just opens up  a huge
 scope  for everyone to disagree on
 > the interpretation  of the  Code, thereby
 causing instability and
 > nomenclatural  chaos  (none of which affects
 Zootaxa...)
 > 
 >   Cheers,
 > 
 > 
 >  Stephen
 > 
 > 
 >  --------------------------------------------
 >   On Mon, 25/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 >   wrote:
 > 
 > 
 >  Subject: RE:
 >   [Taxacom] Important note Re:
 >  two names online published -  one 
   new species
 >    To: "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
 >   <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>,
 >   "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 > "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 >   <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 >   "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >    Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 >    Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016,
 9:31  AM
 > 
 >    I would see the
 >  criteria
 >    for availability more liberally.
 >  Publishing  with a publisher  that
 archives all its  publications anyway  is an
 > intention to  archive.
 >    Being
 >   pragmatic.
 > 
 >    Frank
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >    Dr Frank
 >   T. Krell
 >    Curator of
 >  Entomology
 >    Commissioner, International
 >  Commission on  Zoological Nomenclature 
 Chair, ICZN
 > ZooBank  Committee  Department of
 Zoology  Denver Museum  of Nature
 > &  Science
 >    2001 Colorado
 >  Boulevard
 >    Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
 >    Frank.Krell at dmns.org
 > 
 >    Phone: (+1) (303)
 >   370-8244
 >    Fax: (+1) (303)
 >  331-6492
 >    http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
 >    lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
 > 
 >    Test your powers of
 >    observation in The International
 Exhibition  of  Sherlock  Holmes, open until
 > January 31. And prepare  your  palate for
 >    Chocolate: The
 >  Exhibition,
 >   opening February 12.
 > 
 >    The
 > 
 >  Denver Museum of Nature
 >    & Science
 >   salutes the citizens of metro Denver
 for  helping fund  arts, culture and
 > science through their  support  of the 
 Scientific and Cultural Facilities  District
 > (SCFD).
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  -----Original
 >   Message-----
 >    From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 >    On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
 > 
 > 
 >   Sent: Sunday,
 >    January
 >  24, 2016 12:42 PM
 >    To: 'Stephen
 >    Thorpe'
 >   <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
 >    taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 >    'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >    Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
 >    Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re:
 >   two  names online published - one
 new
 >  species
 > 
 >    I can confirm
 >  that the
 >   Archive was added to  this
 record
 >  at 2016-01-23
 >   12:21:46.330 UTC, by the
 >  same  login account that created  the
 original  registration.  Following the
 > principle that  the work  becomes available
 when  all requirements
 > are  fulfilled  (see my previous email
 reply  to Laurent on this  list),  and
 > assuming all other  requirements for
 publication  are  met, my
 > interpretation  would be that the date of 
 publication for purposes of  priority
 > should be 23  January  2016. If numerous
 copies of  the paper edition
 > were  simultaneously obtainable prior to 
 this date, and  if the  paper edition
 > is in compliance with  the Code for 
 published  works printed on paper, then
 > the date  of  publication for  purposes
 of priority should be  interpreted as the
 > date on  which numerous copies of the 
 printed edition were  simultaneously
 > obtainable (see  Art.
 > 
 >   21.9).
 > 
 >    What is, or is
 >   not
 >    visible through the
 >  ZooBank website is  irrelevant. The
 Code  makes reference  to content in
 > the  Official Register of  Zoological 
 Nomenclature, only a  subset of which is
 > visible  on the  website itself. 
 Future  versions of the ZooBank  website
 > (pending development
 >   support) will include
 >  more  robust and publicly visible 
 documentation of when  specific  items
 > were added or  amended.
 > 
 > 
 >    Aloha,
 >    Rich
 > 
 >    >
 > 
 >  -----Original Message-----
 >    > From:
 >   Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 >    > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016
 9:25  AM  > To:
 > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 
 Doug Yanega  > Cc:
 > deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; 
 engel  > Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 > Important  note Re:
 >  two  names online published - 
 >  one new species  >  > 
 Doug,  >  > I'm
 > not  sure that  this was  at all
 helpful! The addition of the  archive  >
 info  isn't
 > date stamped  (at least not for  public
 view). Now  the record  > misleadingly
 > looks  like valid online  first 
 publication on 4 January
 >  2016:
 >    >
 >   http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
 >    >
 >    > As far as I
 >   know,
 >    the print edition may
 >  not be
 >   published yet (all we  > know
 is
 >  that it is the January
 >   2016 print  issue,
 >  which could be  > published in 
 February for all we  know). So there may be
 > no way to  >  determine the true 
 date of availability  for the new names.
 > 
 >  Even if we  > can get  a definitive
 date on the hard  copy, this doesn't
 > help  much, unless it is on or  before 4
 January 2016.
 >    >
 >    > Stephen
 >    >
 >    >
 > 
 > 
 >  --------------------------------------------
 >    > On Sun, 24/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 >    wrote:
 >    >
 > 
 >   >  Subject:
 >    [Taxacom] Important note
 > 
 >  Re: two names online published -
 > 
 >    > one new species
 > 
 >  >
 >    To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 >    "engel" <msengel at ku.edu>
 >    >  Received: Sunday, 24 January,
 >  2016,
 >   7:34  PM  > 
 >  I sent a
 >  note to the authors of  the  > 
 Kinzelbachilla paper
 >  (who had not  >  been  CCed
 before as Mike Engel had),
 >  and they said they  have  fixed 
 > the ZooBank record
 >  so it  now includes the  archive.
 Accordingly,  for
 >  > the  public record, if  we follow
 the  guideline as
 >  Rich suggested,  all  > 
 of  the  criteria for
 >  availability have now been fulfilled 
 for  the  name in
 >  their  work.
 >    >
 > 
 >  >  Most interesting of all, however,
 if  that they
 >  disagree  regarding  > these 
 two papers  describing
 >  the same taxon, despite both being 
 from  >
 >  essentially the same type of  amber
 deposit:
 >    >
 >    >
 > 
 >   "By the way, it is not
 >  the same thing, the eyes, for  instance,
 are  >
 >  strikingly  different."
 >    >
 >    >  In other words,
 >   this
 >  may not be a matter  of competing for 
 priority,  >
 >  after  all, as Hans had originally
 supposed.
 >    >
 > 
 > 
 >  >
 >   Peace,
 >    >
 >    >  --
 >    >  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
 >  29
 >    years of Taxacom in 2016.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  _______________________________________________
 >    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 29 years
 >  of
 >    Taxacom in 2016.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list