[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Sep 22 17:06:48 CDT 2016


Just a quick update on this: I just now emailed Bal Gautam (http://entomology.lsu.edu/gautam.html), but the email bounced back. However, I did CC the head of the institution, and that hasn't bounced back, so maybe we might be able to find out something from him? Clearly there are "issues" here, but I would like to point out, once again, that they have absolutely nothing to do with the "without dead bodies" issue in taxonomy. It is possible to fake stuff regardless of the methodologies used, and indications are in this case that something very dodgy is going on.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 23/9/16, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
 Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, mivie at montana.edu
 Received: Friday, 23 September, 2016, 9:32 AM
 
 I note that someone using the name
 "Sergey Viktorovich Pushkin" has been active on ZooBank ( http://zoobank.org/Search?search_term=Pushkin
 ), trying to register articles. Also, it appears that
 Hava et al. described Anthrenus pushkini Herrmann, Kadej
 & Háva, 2015! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297838486_A_new_species_of_Anthrenus_Geoffroy_1762_Coleoptera_Dermestidae_from_Dagestan
 
 Evidently they were collaborating at some stage. I have as
 yet had no reply from either Hava, nor the Russian
 university that Pushkin claims affiliation with. The ZooBank
 record for the journal ( http://zoobank.org/References/7C956948-1236-45B4-A62B-414B69567BDE
 ) claims to have a print ISSN, so I wouldn't be too
 quick to dismiss it as e-only! It would be very easy for
 them to produce a minimal print run anyway, or to fake it in
 a way that is difficult to disprove. The journal appears to
 be based in India and appears somewhat "dodgy"! One of the
 editorial board is listed as being USA based: Dr Bal K
 Gautam, Department of Entomology, Louisiana State
 University, Baton Rouge, LA , USA. I might check him out
 ...
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 22/9/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 9:59 PM
  
  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 
  types.)
  
  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.
  
  Laurent -
  
  
  On 09/22/2016 10:23 AM,
  Derek Sikes wrote:
  > Neal,
  >
  > "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...)
  >
  > -Derek
  >
  > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Neal
  Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
  > wrote:
  >
  >> 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.
  >>
  >> -Neal
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> 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>
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>> 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_a
  >>>
  nd_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.
  >>
  >>
  >> 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
  >> 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