[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Sep 21 23:45:47 CDT 2016


OK, I see where you got that from now, but it has nothing to do with the paper by Pushkin that you pointed us to. That paper describes Thaumaglossa zhantievi, but the stealing images issue concerns Anthrenus kamiluhi (described by Pushkin in a different paper). I'm not sure what I think yet, but it is an ugly issue one way or the other. Hava et al. mix serious accusations of forgery with trivial nickpicking, which is very odd! I wouldn't go jumping to any conclusions, or believing one side of the story just yet.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
 To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 4:30 PM
 
 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.eduhttp://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.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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