[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jan 25 17:16:54 CST 2016
>What has the current state of this debate got to do with the original question?<
Since you asked, I will give you the courtesy of an answer: the original thread began with someone pointing out that the same species of fossil strepsipteran had apparently been described twice as new, at about the same time, but that there was an issue with Code compliance with the Electronic Amendment. They asked the question: which name is valid? Just because a simple question can be asked does not necessarily mean that it has a simple answer. It doesn't! In fact, it has no objectively defined answer, beause the issues have not been properly thought through by the ICZN prior to the issuing of the Amendment. I was offering an explanation as to how and why this is so.
As for your other comments about the structure of meetings, I cannot have made myself sufficiently clear! Why was a crucial issue for the Amendment left to the last minute of a single meeting to raise? Why was it then ignored? The issue requires weeks of careful deliberation! It certainly seems to me that crucial issues have been glossed over or even ignored altogether, leaving many publishers now not knowing where their practices stand in realation to Code compliance with the Amendment.
On Tue, 26/1/16, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 12:02 PM
clearly I am not a part of this committee, I have chaired a
few. One thing they have in common is agenda's (not your
meaning of the word I mean structure). I have to agree with
what Frank said here. If they follow the typical set up of a
managed committee any new item would come up under other
business, which is generally last on the agenda. The agenda
also sets a time limit. So items under other business often
does not have a serious amount of time and is often held
over to the next meeting, held over as an agenda item. That
said, it is also very unlikely that any committee will vote
affirmative for new business if the case is not made and
made convincingly. Frank may feel what he put in was an
important issue, and clearly it has become so. However, he
also seems to accept that this is how committees
require a lot of cooperation, on the part of all members.
They are also very responsible for what they do. So they
have to err on the side of caution.
In what you have done here, some 120
mails over 3 threads I think. What have you achieved? To
achieve a goal with a committee requires being proactive,
yes, but not an activist. I said on the other thread there
is a way to accomplish change, there is also a way to not
accomplish it. It also requires staying on topic, not
wandering. What has the current state of this debate got to
do with the original question?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at
8:24 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
it was Rich who snuck Taxacom back in again, after having
conducted an off-list conversation for a while. Like you, I
just clicked "reply to all". I was unaware that
taxacom was back in, but no matter.
I see that you made no comment re the ownership situation
for Magnolia Press! Presumably you got that one wrong!
>At our publishers meeting in London, it came up late in
the day and I did not succeed to make its relevance
sufficiently clear to the person who led the meeting. It was
decided that we deal with it if ever problems emerge. Of
course they would and they did, but at the time, this was
not clear to everybody.<
Hold on! "Publishers meeting"? What's
that? "Person who led the meeting"? Who was that?
So, let me see if I understand: a crucial issue relating to
the proposed Amendment came up late "in THE day"
and only came up at all because you thought to raise it. But
since "THE day" was at an end, nobody could be
bothered dealing with it! Hmmm ...
On Tue, 26/1/16, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
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"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: "'engel''" <msengel at ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 11:13 AM
Now this is funny again.
You, Stephen, included Taxacom. I just replied to all
And as I said, I am out again where I should
Oh, wait, why was the preliminary
version issue not dealt with? At our publishers meeting
London, it came up late in the day and I did not succeed
make its relevance sufficiently clear to the person who
the meeting. It was decided that we deal with it if
problems emerge. Of course they would and they did, but
the time, this was not clear to everybody. You do not
much experience with committee work, do you? It had
to do with Zootaxa. And yes, even if you don’t believe
it had nothing to do with Zootaxa.
Dr Frank T. Krell
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
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)
Fax: (+1) (303)
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
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
of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
Museu de Zoologia da
Universidade de São PauloDivisão de Vertebrados
481, Ipiranga04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728Skype:
FaendalimasMobile Phone: +55 11
974 74 9095
More information about the Taxacom