[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 22 00:08:33 CDT 2016


OK Jason, it is beginning to look like Pushkin is stealing illustrations and publishing them as his own (God only knows why?) However, there is something not quite right in what Hava et al. are claiming (or the way that they are claiming it, mixing pedantic trivia with serious accusations). Pure speculation, but it looks to me like Hava et al. might have been blocking Pushkin from access to material of Dermestidae, which may have angered Pushkin to the point of some twisted attempt at revenge. Who knows? Very ugly, but really nothing at all to do with the way that you introduced this thread. Whether deliberately or not, you basically dragged Marshall and Evenhuis into the same basket as Pushkin, and that was very wrong of you. Marshall and Evenhuis' recent description of a bee fly from a photo has absolutely no relevance to an ugly war over dermestids involving copyright infringements and falsification of taxonomic information!

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, 4:52 PM
 
 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.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