[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe 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
 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
 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
 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.
 >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
 (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.
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 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