[Taxacom] The Hoser Problem and Cash for Names: Can taxonomic and nomenclatural acts be considered IP under law?

igor pavlinov ipvl2008 at mail.ru
Sun Oct 8 14:51:29 CDT 2017

This is just to remind all the discussants that the problem around «taxonomic vandalism” and multiplication of taxa and their names is as eternal as the taxonomy itself.
One probably most famous instance is the so called “Bone Wars” case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars ), when two as famous concurring American paleo-zoologists, Marsh and Cope, made a real pursuit – who was the first to excavate and name a new bone.
Another one, probably more relevant, is so called “nomenclatorial mihi itch” that makes people sick with it striving for more and more names authorized by them, with new names having been coined by some exceed several thousand (Evenhuis, 2008;  http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01890p068.pdf ). So, Alain Dubois (2008;  https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/40037043/00b7d530170d9b3d7d000000.pdf20151115-68247-2a4t7i.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1507454065&Signature=o6o18OEOwl4pQqJnVo7Man7%2FOpU%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DA_partial_but_radical_solution_to_the_pr.pdf ) even suggested, as a remedy, not to indicate the author’s name when a respective taxon name proper is cited.
A recent example known to me is a “book” entitled “The faunogenesis and classification of mammals” ( https://www.si.edu/object/siris_sil_701758 ). Its author downloaded from the Internet all published phylogenetic trees for all mammal taxa from Jurassic to Recent, combined them into one mega-tree – and then coined new names for each and all its previously unnamed branches, about several hundreds in total.
What I’m talking about? Probably, about “incurability” of that “nomenclatorial mihi itch”. Not that I mean it doesn’t deserve protesting against it, but rather that it is to be realized that there were, are and shall be appearing people stricken with that “mihi itch” in a scientific community, just as gene mutations were, are, and shall be appearing in a biological population. “That’s Nature, bro”.


- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
125009 Moscow 

>Воскресенье,  8 октября 2017, 2:55 +03:00 от Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>:
>I would like to comment on this just a little. Personally I think Richard
>does actually raise some good points here. Albeit in his own way, but they
>are valid just the same. However I am going to limit myself to what he has
>said about me.
>With regards to the Wells and Wellington papers (1983 and 1985) I have for
>the last 23 years stated that the names in those papers are available
>because the publications are available. This was true the moment the ICZN
>made its decision. Richard I use your names, have even conserved one of
>them. I was not a part of the case against the Wells and Wellington papers
>and have to say I would not have been if I could have. I was in the
>military when those papers came out and not a herpetologist at the time. I
>have only used them as an example in recent publications and have
>encouraged people to let it go. Including at an ASH presentation. I do not
>consider what you and Ross published to be comparable to what Ray does. I
>did sink 4 of the names in the 1985 paper as unavailable, but that was on
>technicalities with respect to those names, not the publication. I have
>always considered the publication valid. Considering I think from memory
>there are some 600 names in those papers, I only invalidated 4. Yes I work
>on the small obscure group of reptiles of some 375 species called turtles,
>I have done so in 21 countries. I leave lizards and snakes to the people
>who are experts in those species.
>Richard when I started working on turtles no one would use purvisi, or
>Macrochelodina. People were calling the Manning river turtle Elseya sp. aff
>latisternum (Manning) in publications despite you naming it 7 years
>earlier. I considered that ridiculous and started using it. Now it has
>usage. Maybe it was easier for me because I was not involved in the ICZN
>Case against the papers. I do not know. Macrochelodina may be used as a
>subgenus right now but an available and valid name it still is.
>I am well aware of issues such as Pic describing some 30000 taxa. The
>difficulty with vertebrates is that there are more people working on them,
>so more toes to step on, they are also held up in major wildlife
>legislation's around the world. They are more visible. So naming 1000 odd
>taxa in reptiles is a major issue if we do not know how to use the names
>effectively. Personally I could not care how many species anyone describes.
>For me the issue has always been the how, not the quantity.
>For the record the points I agree with you on. I do not know Ray as well as
>you but I know him well enough, he will not stop, he will not give up. He
>will bring down taxonomy and destroy it as a science to fulfill his own
>agenda. Once a science is wrapped up in leglislation the way Pharma is, it
>is no longer science. It is a production system for making money, mostly
>for lawyers, and all semblance of fact checking and repeatability will be
>gone. That is why I am assisting with this. Not sure the Australian legal
>system has the power to force other countries to use names that are
>governed by an international body though. Ray is a narcissist, we both know
>that this is all just the classic behavior of one.
>Cheers, Scott
>On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:07 PM, John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com > wrote:
>> Seems to me that Richard Wells expresses the same kind of demeaning
>> language as Hoser. There is certainly a lot of emotion tied up in this
>> particular matter. As far as I can distil out of the long ramble is that
>> Wells suggests that any attempt to formally curtail or constrain Hosers
>> taxonomic acts would be to invite future litigation. Since I am not a
>> herpetologist I have not been able to keep track in my mind of all the ins
>> and outs so maybe miss the obvious. It still seems to me that one can use
>> or not Hoser's taxonomic acts and leave it at that. Or am I being too
>> simplistic? I am just an ignorant bystander. I would add, perhaps
>> redundantly, that Well's vitriol seems quite indistinguishable from
>> Hoser's. Perhaps someone could compete with Angry Birds by designing an
>> Angry Taxonomists Game?
>> John Grehan
>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>> Virus-free.
>>  www.avast.com
>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Richard Wells < envirodata at hotmail.com >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Distinguished Colleagues and Others:
>> >
>> > Look over the listserv arguments and published record of how the
>> > ‘establishment’ has handled the problem of Raymond Hoser's attempt at
>> > saturate the world with new names in herpetology and you could be
>> forgiven
>> > for thinking that it could have been done more than a bit smarter. From
>> > someone looking on from the sidelines I must say that it seems that much
>> of
>> > the reaction to Hoser's offerings has been underwhelming at best, but
>> here
>> > is not the time or place to dredge up who said what, when, where and why.
>> > It need only be said that new lows are plumbed with every swipe that is
>> > made now – and of course I include Hoser's routinely vitriolic responses
>> > against the infamous "Wuster Gang" – which now probably has more mentions
>> > on the Internet than the Sicilian Mafia thanks to you know who. And given
>> > the almost cavalier disregard Hoser seems to have for the opinions of
>> > others, he will, in all likelihood, continue spraying his toxic taxonomic
>> > pox over global herpetology well into the future and in the process
>> > precipitate even louder protests from the offended ones.
>> >
>> > Without doubt, Hoser is being actively inflamed simply by the way his
>> > critics are responding to his actions and this must only be viewed as a
>> > retrograde step in trying to get matters on a more even keel. Instead,
>> the
>> > obvious mishandling of the issue runs the risk of it degenerating into
>> very
>> > serious long-term damage for the entire system of nomenclature – if it
>> > hasn’t already reached that point.
>> >
>> > Some researchers now may well be asking when will this Hoser Apocalypse
>> > ever end?  But many are also probably wondering how the hell has the
>> issue
>> > gained such traction in the wrong direction?  Well, if I may be blunt I
>> > think that he has become his enemies worst nightmare and it is largely
>> > through their failures that he has become so.
>> >
>> > To some, Hoser just seems to be a pain in the bum that will go quietly
>> > away if he is loudly told to bugger off. Well I can tell you straight out
>> > that this assessment is a big mistake and a mistake that anyone who
>> really
>> > knows him here in Australia would scream out like an ambulance siren if
>> > asked. It clearly appears that some of those taking on Hoser in this
>> group
>> > don’t know who or what the hell they are dealing with. To see some of the
>> > comments from persons who are actually Commissioners with the ICZN or
>> more
>> > concerning, those from highly qualified specialists in the very area of
>> > dispute and it really make you wonder about where this is all going.
>> >
>> > From my observations, he acts more in the manner of a cunning psychopath
>> > than a thoughtful empath - and anyone has their hands full if they want
>> to
>> > try to bulldoze him with their point of view. I consider that he is NOT
>> > your average man of reason - but he IS however very smart - and not just
>> in
>> > a smart-arse sort of way. He has a deep and complex memory so I can
>> assure
>> > everyone that they should have absolutely no doubt that he is likely
>> > setting up for legal action certain targets over their statements and
>> > actions made regarding his ‘contributions’. In my view you are all being
>> > sucked into something much more serious than a mere argument over
>> > classifying animals. Make no mistake about it, he can be as cunning as a
>> > house rat, so only a fool would under-estimate him. He is more like a
>> > street-smart bully boy that thrusts his narcissistic needs onto anyone
>> > within range and he can be viciously self-protective when he doesn't get
>> > his way. These traits can bring out the worst in even the best taxonomic
>> > scholar, so not surprisingly, the responses to Hoser can take on a
>> > tit-for-tat maelstrom that in many ways make both sides look disturbingly
>> > similar to each other. Any academic herpetologist who foolishly proffer
>> > solutions to Hoser issues that in effect makes a critic no different
>> > ethically, actually undermines their own argument before getting to first
>> > base.
>> >
>> > Take Scott Thomson a noted expert in herpetology – albeit only in regards
>> > to a small group of freshwater turtles – but nevertheless a good
>> > nomenclaturist by any reasonable measure. He just seems to have become
>> > fixated with such a bias towards his own agenda that he is starting  to
>> go
>> > on like a bit of a dill over Hoser. As a distraction, wherever possible
>> he
>> > also still likes to get in an essential swipe at that Wells and
>> Wellington
>> > pair at any chance to attack Hoser. Thomson should really stick to his
>> Don
>> > Quixote-like path to his dream of becoming a Commissioner of the ICZN
>> > sometime before the year 2100. Scott mate here’s a quick heads up - just
>> > give it a rest – poor old Wells and Wellington have moved on – it’s over
>> 30
>> > years later now and they have got new wives, become property speculators
>> > and are searching the skies for incoming asteroids instead of swimming in
>> > formalin, being bitten by snakes and arguing with morons. Also consider
>> the
>> > ramblings of that leading light Commissioner of the ICZN Dr Doug Yanega
>> > whenever he tries to bitch-slap Hoser – just pathetic, comments so
>> ordinary
>> > as to be almost laughable. He treats Hoser and anyone else who intimately
>> > knows the Code as though they are complete idiots in how he applies the
>> > Code against the issue. His premature weaponizing of the non-mandatory
>> > Recommendations in the Code by treating them with the effective sanctity
>> of
>> > the mandatory Articles is not the magic bullet against Hoser that he
>> would
>> > hope. Such misuse of the Code misfires badly because it only lowers the
>> > debate to straw-grasping at the lower end in the range of offenses
>> against
>> > better nomenclatural judgement…Doug, have you ever thought of becoming a
>> > waiter mate? Wolfgang Wuster is another  protagonist that comes across as
>> > quite a reasonable and intelligent sort of guy with a formidable
>> > understanding of matters pertaining to the Code to boot, but his proposed
>> > use of the Code’s provisions against Hoser have more twists and turns
>> than
>> > a bag of Brown Snakes and they have a slickness about them that makes you
>> > feel like you are shaking hands with a slippery eel. Stop the
>> game-playing
>> > if you can’t play by the Rules people. It's not been a total disaster
>> > though. Thorpe and Dubois and a scant few others have managed to
>> maintain a
>> > measured and thoughtful approach to Hoser and in so doing appear to me to
>> > have a real grasp on the issue – and on the guy too by the way - at least
>> > as far as this listserv debate goes. It is little surprise though that
>> > Hoser kicks back against the current because his personality does not
>> seem
>> > to respond well to rejection or criticism when it is wrapped in a patina
>> of
>> > abuse. In my opinion most respondents to Hoser haven’t got a clue about
>> the
>> > kind of person he is.
>> >
>> > Reacting to criticism is always dicey in academic pursuits everyone knows
>> > that – but when it turns into snarling almost identical to a rabid dog
>> you
>> > really have to ask yourself do you need to go there…In the early days of
>> > the reactions to what he was doing I tried to warn him not to over-react
>> > and as the years slipped by and the yelling over his actions became
>> louder,
>> > I repeatedly told Hoser to just suck it up and stop being a dickhead
>> about
>> > it by stirring everyone up with even more abuse. I told him that academic
>> > criticism comes in many forms (and reasonable, rational, logical
>> criticisms
>> > are among the rarest) and that it just goes with the territory of
>> sticking
>> > your head up - but to no avail. I also not-so-politely pointed out that
>> > classifying organisms is like throwing your weight around in a mob of
>> thugs
>> > that likes a fight…if you want to have a go, you just better start
>> swinging
>> > with all the proof that you have otherwise you'll end up on the mat.
>> Hoser
>> > doesn't do that, he just doesn’t get it that he is part of a community
>> > where ideas live and die by the cut and thrust of argument, reason and
>> > intellectual analysis. Hoser always had to just put up or shut up and in
>> my
>> > view, that he doesn’t do that is not because he won't do it, it's just
>> that
>> > he probably can't do it. You could drive a proverbial truck through most
>> of
>> > his taxonomic arrangements in the areas that I am most familiar with,
>> and I
>> > dread to think of what the rest is like if he has buggered up his own
>> > countries’ herpetofauna…in my humble view much of what he has written has
>> > the legs of a slug and it’s going to go nowhere fast. This is simply
>> > because he has written on many (I’d say most) groups that he has scant
>> > experience and knowledge of and although he has managed to put forward a
>> > few original hypotheses and many unoriginal interpolations, much of what
>> he
>> > has done reeks of bitterness and revenge rather than constructive
>> dialogue
>> > of a scientific nature. Yes, he will succeed in having created a pile of
>> > names and actions, but compared to the Invertebrate taxonomic arena Hoser
>> > is a slacker by his out-put to date. His contributions are more annoying
>> > than impressive and if that’s the best he can do, well the Mollusca,
>> > Coleoptera and Diptera workers around the world must be just politely
>> > giggling at his efforts while they try to get their heads around
>> > classifications so complex that would do Hoser’s head in like a beer can
>> > under a bulldozer. So Hoser and the Hoser-bashers alike really need to up
>> > their game. Laboured claims of unethical conduct from Hoser as well as
>> from
>> > the peanut gallery - no matter how well-founded - take a poor second
>> place
>> > to any objective analysis of a piece of  'work' and are even further
>> > removed by highly questionable responses by both sides that underpin the
>> > over-writing of contentious nomina with 'approved' synonyma.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, and in light of the above, I see the ICZN being
>> > progressively drawn into a debacle of potentially epic proportions. Hoser
>> > and his opponents are rapidly turning a relatively simple nomenclatural
>> > issue into a scene reminiscent of a Fawlty Towers farce with some
>> > Commissioners of the ICZN actively competing for leading roles. Doug
>> Yanega
>> > is competing very strongly for the starring role – but he seems to be
>> > presently flip-lopping between Basil Fawlty and Manuel the Waiter – but
>> my
>> > hope is that he’ll go for the Waiter…
>> >
>> > Anyway, I think that this listserv should seriously attempt to extricate
>> > itself from the mire that it is rapidly finding itself slipping into by
>> > being very careful indeed how it responds in future to Hoser. To be
>> frank,
>> > to date you guys have really made a dog’s breakfast out of Hoser’s recipe
>> > for chaos by giving him a standing that he does not at all deserve. I
>> find
>> > it curious how otherwise intelligent people have quite underestimated
>> Hoser
>> > in their greedy haste to put a stop to his actions through idiotic plans
>> > and actions to actually rename taxa and redo or uncritically ignore his
>> > nomenclatural acts. Piling the shit higher and deeper does not fix the
>> > sewer - it only serves to spread the stink further.
>> >
>> > In the longer view, the Hoser issue may all be seen in hindsight as just
>> a
>> > messy part of the froth and bubble of Science, so not be too great a
>> cause
>> > for worry or concern. I would caution however, that the current
>> > participants are very much part of the here-and-now, so I can foresee
>> that
>> > this situation will likely get much worse before it settles down - unless
>> > it goes legal of course - then all bets are off in quick time. Hence my
>> > interest in the latest Rant from Ray that is currently circulating among
>> > those with the stomach to still read or care what he thinks. Frustrated
>> by
>> > the growing chorus of disapproval and obvious intent to suppress his
>> work,
>> > Hoser is now seriously considering taking legal action against all and
>> > sundry who threaten his Intellectual Property of all things. And this
>> > development bears some serious consideration too in my humble opinion.
>> >
>> > Hoser is now starting to flag his intentions through emails to legally
>> > defend what he believes to be his Intellectual Property in regards to his
>> > ‘contributions’ in systematic herpetology - a notion that borders on the
>> > oxymoronic when it comes to some of his taxonomic arrangement some might
>> > say. So partly in response to the way some have responded to his efforts,
>> > and partly as a consequence of his own particular personality traits,
>> Hoser
>> > has, in effect, indicated that he actually considers taxonomic and
>> > nomenclatural acts as IP. This could be viewed as a potentially, or even
>> > highly, contentious issue for global classification yet it has received
>> > virtually no attention (as yet). Hoser now considers himself not only a
>> > stake-holder but also a rights-holder in the classification of life and
>> > this has enormous implications for the potential financial value of IP
>> used
>> > in biological research at the very foundation level of the organism’s
>> name
>> > ! On the surface this IP ploy might appear to be just another piece of
>> > preposterous Hoser hyperbole out of the same mother ship that brought us
>> > that tsunami of unmemorable jaw-breaking binomials, trinomials and all
>> > manner of stunning patronomials that have flowed from his poison pen. But
>> > this is not an original Hoser idea by any means as it has been quietly
>> > rumbling around for years in one form or another following in the dust of
>> > various forays into the late 20th century commercialization of life
>> through
>> > concepts like Plant Variety Rights legislation, advances in DNA
>> technology
>> > and the innumerable biological product discoveries derived from
>> > bio-prospecting and the like. He seems to have seized upon this intent
>> as a
>> > bulwark against moves by other herpetologists as well as systematists on
>> > the ICZN and elsewhere to make unavailable the majority of his published
>> > new names and nomenclatural acts. This is not all that surprising as it
>> was
>> > something that both Ross Wellington and I also seriously considered (but
>> > dismissed) back in 1987 during a similar conflict from some of the same
>> > persons now going after Hoser. It seems the more the things change, the
>> > more they stay the same in some cases. Of course the big idea of the here
>> > and now is simply (in the most diabolically complex way) it could also
>> mean
>> > that an eventual Ruling by the ICZN to suppress his Journal and/or his
>> > names and/or nomenclatural actions - should that be seriously considered
>> -
>> > could be eventually challenged in the courts and potentially found to be
>> > unlawful and worse, expose the responsible parties to damages actions by
>> > Hoser ipso facto! Boy will that throw the proverbial Mouse to the Death
>> > Adder. It could also have implications for other Hoser taxa and actions
>> > that have been over-written by others and so further expose parties to
>> > other damages actions by him.
>> >
>> > But forget the Hoser focus (if you can) and just consider the potential
>> > broader inflationary effects wrought by taxonomic IP cost increases for
>> > everything from biologically-based pharmaceuticals derived from even
>> animal
>> > testing - headache pills and anti-depressants immediately come to mind.
>> The
>> > need to pay royalties to every stake-holder taxonomist (AND even
>> > nomenclaturist if full credit is to be applied) could be loaded onto any
>> > species used in any research. Imagine the nice little money-spinners that
>> > Rattus rattus and Mus musculus will become – pity Linnaeus couldn’t be
>> > around to scoop that pile up…unless of course someone does the old
>> > switcheroo and ‘redefines’ (I mean ‘redescribes’) long-established
>> > concepts. Hold on, did I just hear Hoser calling or was that the moaning
>> of
>> > a chill wind?
>> >
>> > Look, all banter aside, if names and actions in classification can be
>> > treated as Intellectual Property, it should be taken very seriously
>> indeed.
>> > It could potentially impact upon vast areas of biology, not least of
>> course
>> > the ICZN if it reaches its potential for application - the very capacity
>> of
>> > the ICZN to apply the Code in matters requiring the use of its plenary
>> > powers and doubtless even its more general uses as well would come to
>> pass
>> > - make no mistake about that.
>> >
>> > So, will this apparent absurdity actually get legs and start tumbling
>> > through the Courts? If Hoser feels threatened, it is a distinct
>> possibility
>> > in my view for reasons that I have already outlined. Well, he’s cashed up
>> > after his latest successful round of IP and other criminal litigation
>> > activities in Australia, he's had a haircut, bought some flash new suits
>> > and he's on the prowl for victims - and to make matters worse, he has
>> never
>> > been one to be shy about throwing money in the gutter. Unless averted by
>> > cooler heads, this scenario has got all the ingredients for a veritable
>> > perfect storm of almost biblical proportions - and once started it might
>> > only be averted by something like the Sun blowing up if Hoser has his
>> way.
>> >
>> > Of course I don't want to cause a rush to the life rafts, so I must
>> > quickly state that I am not able to answer this IP question with any
>> > certainty or authority as I am not in the position to have an informed
>> > legal opinion in such matters. I’m not a lawyer or even a know-it-all
>> > academic in some god-forsaken backwater university that values opinions
>> > delivered on some crowded pin-head platform that no one really cares
>> about
>> > anyway.
>> >
>> > But I am at the very least, rather cautious about the possibility that
>> > such a situation might germinate from this Hoser issue, because a
>> disaster
>> > like that may be all the more likely the more unpredictable its root
>> cause.
>> > Thinking about this crazy possibility though might allow some kind of
>> > understanding of an issue whose time might be approaching irrespective of
>> > the current causative agent. It really gets the juices flowing when you
>> > think about the potential implications of its effects…like imagining a
>> > near-future when the naming and partitioning of organisms may soon
>> require
>> > peer review by an IP lawyer as well as the usual club members
>> > rubber-stamping their mate’s papers for publication. The potential
>> > financial implications could also seriously under-write biological
>> research
>> > for millennia to come once all the snouts find the money trough. Just
>> think
>> > of the cheques in the mail from Big Pharma that may start flowing to
>> > compensate the original author/s of descriptions/acts that have been used
>> > to define the very basis of products derived from that organism. If names
>> > and nomenclatural acts for that matter are actually protected by
>> > International Intellectual Property Law then is it really all that
>> > unreasonable that taxonomists (and presumably their institutional
>> > employers) are potentially sitting on the mother-lode....Good bye the old
>> > days of sitting on research for decades without describing so much as a
>> new
>> > intention...finally the academic publishers will again be pumping out
>> > papers like Zootaxa on steroids! Damn it – I always knew that I should
>> have
>> > said something about the nomenclatural position of Homo sapiens back in
>> the
>> > 80s but primates have always been over-rated if not over-valued among
>> > herpetologists.
>> >
>> > But let’s get back to basics. It will be interesting to see if Hoser has
>> > the balls to ‘bung this caper on’ as we say in Oz. Will he dare to
>> > commercialize classification, in effect turning a pig’s arse into a silk
>> > purse to save his own bacon? Does this madness have any legs at all? But
>> > more importantly, will Hoser ever shut up taxonomically long enough for
>> us
>> > to get ahead of his game? These are questions that are begging for
>> answers,
>> > so come on ICZN listserv gang give it a go (whoops !...sorry about the
>> > ‘gang’label – it was just a slip).
>> >
>> > So my thoughts on the surface might just be the wild ramblings of a
>> broken
>> > taxonomist of course, but personally, I do not believe that the Code is
>> > actually exempt from the provisions of Statute Law - although I would
>> > readily admit, and openly support the notion that it should be – if only
>> to
>> > ensure freedom of scientific discourse remains untrammelled by the filthy
>> > lucre of the geneticists and their hi-tech mates.
>> >
>> > Despite all of the above, and only in my opinion of course, Hoser is
>> > clearly going down that IP yellow brick road judging by his
>> perambulations
>> > in our civil and criminal courts here in Australia so I would expect that
>> > he will be mass-litigating rather soon. I expect that quite a number of
>> > potential victims will be rounded up and herded into courthouses by
>> Hoser’s
>> > inquisitors – and the hapless victims will not only reside in the ranks
>> of
>> > the ICZN, but also include some very significant members of the
>> scientific
>> > community as well as the academic institutions that they represent,
>> > multi-national corporations of course and certain big publishers as a
>> > result of their reactions to his ‘contributions’.
>> >
>> > Yes, I think he has telegraphed enough of his punches to make it pretty
>> > clear that the gloves are off and he’s dancing around the ring looking to
>> > deliver a knock-out punch. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think so. Again
>> > in my opinion, it would also appear to me that on the surface Hoser may
>> > have grounds for some pretty significant actions at that, although if the
>> > truth be openly stated he might be playing with a double-edged sword –
>> > meaning his own actions against the work of others are possibly not
>> without
>> > risk to himself as well. It really is unknown territory that the
>> potential
>> > combatants are rolling around in, so it’s watch this space I suppose.
>> >
>> > So what I am saying is simply this. If the ICZN isn't very careful indeed
>> > how it handles the Hoser issue, I think it may rapidly devolve into the
>> > status of something akin to a nomenclatural vomitocracy and, its Opinions
>> > will start looking more like a Hoser paper - pouring out like shit from a
>> > Goose and no one will want to be anywhere near it...and Hoser will have
>> > cooked their Goose well and truly in the process - AND actually used them
>> > to do it!
>> >
>> > Hoser’s interest in pursuing an outcome in the Courts using Intellectual
>> > Property Law may signify that the end game is fast approaching and the
>> > “Names for Cash” initiative used to fund taxonomic research in the recent
>> > past might end up being a “Cash for Names” windfall if 'the Snakeman' has
>> > anything to do with it…
>> >
>> > Best Regards
>> >
>> > Richard Wells
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>> >  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> >  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> >
>> > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>Scott Thomson
>Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
>Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
>04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
>Chelonian Research Institute
>402 South Central Avenue,
>Oviedo, 32765, Florida, USA
>ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
>Lattes: * http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
>< https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD# >
>Skype: Faendalimas
>Skype Number:  +55 (11) 3280 0144
>Mobile Phone:  +55 11 94025 0499
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>You can reach the person managing the list at:  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list