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

Stephen Thorpe 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
 Hi Stephen, 
 > 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 mailing list