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

Donat Agosti agosti at amnh.org
Mon Jan 25 07:26:11 CST 2016


Dear Stephen
I would like to kindly ask you to write a blog with all your allegations and not to spam this list for such a long period of time. Otherwise you do a disfavor to this community.

If you want to be an investigative list serve writer, please do so by private mails to respective colleagues and then present your case at once.

If you are interested in open access, open access business models, science funding policies then please take your time and follow the respective state of the art site so we do not have to discover the wheel again. See eg  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Open_Access_Tracking_Project  This is very exciting read, but I guess not for everybody on the list.

Thanks for your consideration

Donat



-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 1:41 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Doug Yanega' <dyanega at ucr.edu>; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; 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

Well, for the benefit of anybody who does read my reply: Frank evidently thinks that it OK to counter accusations with, well, counter-accusations! I'm not sure that such a strategy is particularly helpful or contructive! How about tackling the actual issue, rather than just making counter-accusations?

>You are accusing the Commission to draft the Amendment in a way that it 
>gives an advantage to the business of one of its members<

Yes, I guess that I am. However, these things can and do happen. It is called "conflict of interest" (COI). It is not a far fetched "alien abduction conspiracy theory"! Just as a member of a jury should not be related to the victim (or to the accused), a member of the ICZN should not be a publisher of ICZN regulated matter. It is really very straightforward, commonsense stuff. Why are you not seeing that?

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>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 1:27 PM
 
 Stephen,
 You are accusing the Commission to draft the  Amendment in a way that it gives an advantage to the  business of one of its members.
 That's
 why we are accusing you to comfort yourself in your  conspiracy theory. Your theory is neither close to reality  nor is it helpful. The ICZN is not that cheap. Yes, seeing  causalities everywhere where there are none is tempting and  widespread in human culture, but it very often not true.
 And, no, Stephen, you won't have the last  word here because I am leaving this discussion now and will  not see your reply :-)  Back to work
 
 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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 
 Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 4:36 PM
 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>;  deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: 'engel' <msengel at ku.edu>
 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two  names online published - one new species
 
 Nice try Rich!
 
 >I am saying your premises (what you refer  to as "facts") are flawed,  >and hence there is neither coincidence nor  conspiracy<
 
 No that is
 not what you have been saying. You have been publicly  accusing me of "conspiracy theories" (your words),  not flawed premises. Now you are just back peddling a  little.
 
 >and/or
 recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners  that  >were ignored?<
 
 Again putting words into my
 mouth. I made absolutely no suggestion that any  recommendations were ignored. I have no idea if any were  ignored or not. What I do know is that the answers one gets  to questions depends on what questions are asked, how they  are asked, how well they are explained, and how well the  issue is advertised (I recall, for example, a security  manager who said something like "legally, we have to  identify security cameras with a sign, but there is nothing  to say that sign has to be big!")
 
 >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"?<
 
 Sure. The Amendment has
 created a situation whereby effectively "the Zootaxa  way is the best way, and everybody else should follow or  else risk non-compliance with the Code". The main issue  concerns online first publication of articles before final  pagination and assignment to a volume/issue. This became  such a big problem that the "metadata solution"
 was quickly drafted as a "band aid", but it is far  from ideal. Not all publishers have the resources to do  things the Zootaxa way, and why should they have to? Zootaxa  apparently still publishes online and print editions (more  or less) simultaneously, so the whole online aspect, as  someone today already noted on Taxacom, is kind of redundant  anyway for Zootaxa. It appears to be there just in case the  journal needs to go e-only for some reason (this may  increase profit margins by reducing overheads, though,  alternatively, hard copy subscriptions might be a good way  for researchers to strategically ditch funding, but that  doesn't matter for present purposes). So, in summary:
 basically, the date written on a Zootaxa PDF can be  confidently taken to be the date of valid publication,  without any complications.
 
 >> and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a
 significant input into the
 >>
 Amendment.<<
 >Really?  How
 so?<
 By being part of the decision making
 process. It is a pretty good analogy with something like
 this: if you were on trial, would you accept even just one  of the 12 jurors being related to the victim? As I said, the  case for a COI here is pretty clear. I'm surprised that  you are claiming otherwise.
 
 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, 12:02  PM
  
  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.
  
  Aloha,
  Rich
_______________________________________________
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