[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 23:52:23 CDT 2016


Hi Stephen,

"Holotype" picture of T. zhantievi is actually T. laeta pinched from
this website: http://www.dermestidae.com/Thaumaglossalaeta.html

Genitalia of "Holotype" T. zhantievi is actually genitalia from T.
mroczkowski from the article by Hava & Kadej (2005: Description of a
new species of Thaumaglossa REDTENBACHER), fig 7.


I agree that the Hava et al 2016 article is somewhat confused and but
I stand by the digital pinching by Pushkin, which was the original
intention in me highlighting this article.

Best

Jason

On 22 September 2016 at 14:38, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Jason said "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".
>
> Sorry Jason, but you are making that up! Where's the evidence. Besides, the "real species" to which you refer is Thaumaglossa laeta Arrow, 1915. I think you need to consult a calculator if you think 1915 is "10 years before"!
>
> 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.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.
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  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