[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Sep 21 23:35:02 CDT 2016
Looking at this in a bit more detail reveals a rather ugly side to it, probably involving territoriality. Reading Jason's post, I at first missed the fact that he cites a second paper which attacks the first (this is why I didn't understand Neal's remark), i.e.,
Háva, J.; Herrmann, A.; Kadej, M. 2016: New faunistic records and remarks on Dermestidae (Coleoptera) - Part 15. Studies and reports (Taxonomical series), 12(2): 339-344. [See p. 343]
Háva et al. make various accusations against Pushkin ("Pushkin (2016b) did many flaws and very serious misconducts"), none of which make much sense. They make a big deal of the fact that no holotype repository was specified, but this is a minor technicality (actually very common). They nitpick over a minor inconsistency in the number of specimens in the type series (3 or 4), which is probably just result of a typo. More seriously, they say "Fig. 1 is the figure according to web pages: http://www.dermestidae.com/Thaumaglossalaeta.html". It is not quite clear what they mean by this, but although it may or may not be the same species as T. laeta, it is certainly not the very same photo, as they seem to imply, so, at worst Pushkin's new species must be synonymised (wow, like that's a big sin that has never happened before!)
It is a little bit concerning to me that Jason fell for Háva et al.'s rhetoric and propagated it uncritically!
On Thu, 22/9/16, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
To: "JF Mate" <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 3:54 PM
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
failed to designate a type depository for each — a
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
sloppy descriptions and sloppy review of the sloppy
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>
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.
author was pretty lazy and it ended up being a nomen
>nudum. Reference to original article and
link to article uncovering
>Original article: Description of a new
species of the genus
(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
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.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Liquidity for 29 years.
More information about the Taxacom