[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 22 01:15:50 CDT 2016


I agree with Mike that it is indeed strange! I'm trying to get an explanation from Jiri Hava via ResearchGate, but nothing as yet. I guess the simple answer is that Pushkin thought he could get away with it (don't most people who commit crimes?) I guess it is remotely possible that the real Pushkin is being set up as the world's first "taxonomic patsy", but probably unlikely! My money is still on his motivation being anger about Hava blocking his access to material, or something along those lines. Hopefully we might find out at least some of the truth?

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 22/9/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 6:09 PM
 
 This seems so strange,
 there is nothing about it that helps Pushkin. The 
 only possible outcome for Pushkin is
 discrediting. Is there any chance 
 someone
 that wanted to discredit him did this with his name on it
 but he 
 had no knowledge of it?  I
 don't know him at all, but it seems 
 self-destructive if true.
 
 Mike
 
 
 On 9/21/2016 11:38 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Since fraudulent taxonomy is very bad for
 science, I have just now emailed the rector (=vice
 chancellor, =president) of the university that Pushkin
 claims to be affiliated with, alerting her to the issue, and
 suggesting that someone needs to talk to him. I have no idea
 if she will bother to read or take my email seriously, or
 even if Puskin really is affiliated with that University as
 he claims, but maybe it might help to prevent further such
 fraudulent publications?
 >
 > 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.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.
 >   
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > 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.
 
 -- 
 __________________________________________________
 
 Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
 F.R.E.S.
 
 NOTE: two
 addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
 
 US Post Office Address:
 Montana Entomology Collection
 Marsh Labs, Room 50
 PO Box
 173145
 Montana State University
 Bozeman, MT 59717
 USA
 
 UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
 Montana Entomology Collection
 Marsh Labs, Room 50
 1911 West
 Lincoln Street
 Montana State University
 Bozeman, MT 59718
 USA
 
 
 (406)
 994-4610 (voice)
 (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
 mivie at montana.edu
 
 _______________________________________________
 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