[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org
Wed Sep 21 22:54:57 CDT 2016

Actually …

This has nothing to do with publishing based on a photograph only. A
holotype is clearly listed as examined. The names are nomina nuda because
the author failed to designate a type depository for each — a common
mistake unfortunately.

What is troublesome in the paper that you refer to that points out that
these are nomina nuda, is the conclusion for each name says the opposite!
That they are “available”.

Simply, sloppy descriptions and sloppy review of the sloppy descriptions.


On Stardate 9/21/16, 5:40 PM, "Taxacom on behalf of JF Mate"
<taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>

>It seems taxonomy fraudsters have cottoned on the fact that
>descriptions no longer require "dead bodies". A description of a new
>Dermestidae was published in Entomology and Applied Science Letters.
>Fortunately the author was pretty lazy and it ended up being a nomen
>nudum. Reference to original article and link to article uncovering
>the dirty deed below.
>Original article: Description of a new species of the genus
>Thaumaglossa (COLEOPTERA: Dermestidae: Megatominae) of the Astrakhan
>Region of Russia.
>Entomology and Applied Science Letters, 2016, 3, 4: 12-14.
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.

This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list