[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 23:30:48 CDT 2016


Relax Stephen,

"Just to be clear, descriptions *never* required "dead bodies". This
is nothing new."
I know, I am recycling somebody elses title. Take it up with them.

"Also, it is not a nomen nudum. A nomen nudum is a name published
without a description/diagnosis or illustration. I assume you mean
that it fails to be an available name for some reason (I can think of
two candidate reasons in this case)." That is not why I brought it up.

"Most importantly, I am at a total and complete loss as to why you
think this paper has any relevance to "without dead bodies". The
description includes details and illustrations of the internal
genitalia, etc.! Why in the name of heck do you refer to this case as
a "dirty deed"?? I think that it must be you who are confused ... "
Because the author pinched the pictures from former colaborators who
had previously described a real new species in another article 10
years before, photosopped them and published it as a different
species. I think that is interesting and somehow it has bearing,
however tangentially, to the rise of digital only descriptions.

Best

On 22 September 2016 at 13:56, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Just to be clear, descriptions *never* required "dead bodies". This is nothing new. Also, it is not a nomen nudum. A nomen nudum is a name published without a description/diagnosis or illustration. I assume you mean that it fails to be an available name for some reason (I can think of two candidate reasons in this case). However, it will probably be treated as an available name, as it only fails on a technicality, and so do a great many names in big journals, so the Code will probably have to "loosen up" at some stage. Most importantly, I am at a total and complete loss as to why you think this paper has any relevance to "without dead bodies". The description includes details and illustrations of the internal genitalia, etc.! Why in the name of heck do you refer to this case as a "dirty deed"?? I think that it must be you who are confused ...
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
>  To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 3:40 PM
>
>  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.
>
>  Jason
>
>  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.
>
>
>  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308163532_New_Faunistic_Records_and_remarks_on_Dermestidae_Coleoptera_-_Part_15
>  _______________________________________________
>  Taxacom Mailing List
>  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list