[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Jan 25 14:23:40 CST 2016
Yes, Stephen. Alas, we are all "mere mortals". Next time, we'll consult with God, as you previously alluded to. Since all of us on the Commission are millionaires, having been paid such enormous salaries by the ICZN, at the very least we'll hire a top-notch expert such as yourself to review the text.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:16 AM
> To: 'Paul van Rijckevorsel'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: 'engel''
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
> new species
> 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