[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
l.raty at skynet.be
Thu Sep 22 04:59:01 CDT 2016
A "collection" where the type(s) are intended to be deposited must be
designated and its location given *IF* the types are extant specimens.
(The whole purpose of this provision being to make it as easy as
possible for a subsequent worker to re-locate the type series -- and put
an end to situations where this subsequent author had to use "any
evidence, published or unpublished," to guess where he might find the
But anyway, the first problem here doesn't seem to be the depository.
The first problem is that the journal is electronic, and the paper lacks
a ZooBank registration, thus it is wholly unpublished and *nothing* in
it is nomenclaturally relevant.
The description is fake as well, by the way, not just the images -- 99%
of the text being an evident 'remix' of the description of Thaumaglossa
mroczkowskii by Háva & Kadej 2005.
As michael noted, it seems impossible to understand such a behaviour if
it comes from a professional scientist, as it can only be damaging for
him. But do we necessarily need to accept that it really happened..? One
possible purpose for such a 'paper' may be to create a fake publication
track for a 'predatory' journal, in order to attract submissions.
On 09/22/2016 10:23 AM, Derek Sikes wrote:
> "The names are nomina nuda because the author failed to designate a type
> depository for each — a common
> mistake unfortunately."
> Could you clarify this further? If a depository designation is needed to
> avoid names becoming nomina nuda, then how is it possible to name a species
> based only on a photo? (As it seems it is). If the type is running around
> free, it can't have a depository. I'd appreciate knowing where in the code
> this is spelled out. Thanks! (I'm teaching systematics now and we've
> covered these descriptions based on photographed but uncollected types...)
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
>> 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 common
>> 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 “available”.
>> Simply, sloppy descriptions and sloppy review of the sloppy descriptions.
>> 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>
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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:
>> Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
More information about the Taxacom