[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 25 14:15:44 CST 2016
LOL! I guess I was too busy trying to survive and continue doing something positive for biodiversity research, with approximately zero funding, and I may have naively put too much faith in the ability of the Commission to do its job properly! We live and learn ...
On Tue, 26/1/16, 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>, "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: "'engel''" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 9:08 AM
> Shouldn't all this
"business" have been "sorted out"
*before* the Amendment
> was issued??
Yes, of course it should
have. That's why there was a nearly FOUR YEAR period
of public review. You had access to the draft amendment
during this public review period, and given that your
interpretation of the Code is far superior to anyone
else's interpretation, you carried a greater
responsibility than the rest of us to ensure the draft was
perfect. As such, all of these problems we are discussing
now are largely your fault.
More information about the Taxacom