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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Jan 24 17:02:41 CST 2016

Sorry, Stephen, but this is nonsense.

> The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a 100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative models; 

Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the Amendment is a "100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model", and b) how it "fails for many alternative models"?  Since you assert this as a "fact", I would expect your elaborations to be devoid of opinion.

> and (2) the owner of Zootaxa
> had a significant input into the Amendment. 

Really?  How so?  The only role that all Commissioners played that was not open to full public access was the decision on how to craft the final draft of the ratified Amendment that was voted on.  Could you please explain where the changes between the originally published draft and the final published version of the Amendment differed in a way that favored the Zootaxa publishing model to the detriment of other publishing models, and/or recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners that were ignored?

> So you are saying that is mere "coincidence", are you? 

No, I am saying your premises (what you refer to as "facts") are flawed, and hence there is neither coincidence nor conspiracy.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list