[Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 12:52:52 CST 2020


And lets not forget the zillions spent on war, space exploration etc.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:49 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Donat said "... more money will be diverted for charting and
> understanding global biodiversity"
> So it appears that Donat is a good example of one of the priviliged few
> who wants to make science slightly more convenient for himself and his
> colleagues, by way of diverting what in the long run will be $trillions
> away from healthcare, welfare, etc., thereby helping to keep much of the
> world locked in poverty.
>     On Friday, 6 March 2020, 08:54:19 am UTC, Donat Agosti <
> agosti at amnh.org> wrote:
>
>   <!--#yiv2806890530 _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv2806890530
> #yiv2806890530 a:link, #yiv2806890530 span.yiv2806890530MsoHyperlink
> {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2806890530
> p.yiv2806890530MsoPlainText, #yiv2806890530 li.yiv2806890530MsoPlainText,
> #yiv2806890530 div.yiv2806890530MsoPlainText
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",
> sans-serif;}#yiv2806890530 span.yiv2806890530PlainTextChar
> {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv2806890530
> .yiv2806890530MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered
> {}#yiv2806890530 div.yiv2806890530WordSection1 {}-->
> A comment to open science.
>
>
>
> The situation has changed regarding open access and open science. The EU
> fully requires open access to anything they fund. No funds are awarded to
> any institution that will not accept a commitment to open access. Many of
> our institutions signed up the Bouchout Declaration on Open Biodiversity
> Knowledge Management and open access is for example a central part of the
> development ofDiSSCo – the Distributed System of Scientific Collections in
> Europe.
>
>
>
> Many of our science agencies signed up on DORA, the San Francisco
> declaration on alternative metrics, and increasingly even disregard
> citation indexes to evaluate scientists and proposals.
>
>
>
> It is very obvious, that open access opens a complete new door to the way
> we do science. It saves an enormous amount of time to access cited works,
> literature to specimens. It enables large studies that have not been
> possible before.
>
> It improves our science, because many eyes have suddenly access to the
> data, data can be analyzed in context, including links to any cited
> material, that not has been possible.
>
> In fact, it should be our ambition and goal that any publication is
> accessible through PubMed, BHL, BLR or GBIF or a similar global
> infrastructure, and the data therein is citable, such as figures, taxonomic
> treatments or materials cited.
>
>
>
> This data can and is reused, see eg the last published EJT: It is not only
> accessible as PDF, but in various  formats in theBiodiversity Literature
> Repository, inTreatmentBank orGBIF. Thetypes are accessible, images are
> accessible to anybody anywhere at any time in the world. The scientists
> contribution is immediately accessible through services like theBloodhound
> tracker, or it can be reused in knowledge systems likeopenbiodiv or
> Wikidata. And all the access points lead always back to the source
> publication.
>
>
>
> The only stumbling block for most of the literature is that we even don't
> know that a new species has been described, even worse, to a large extent
> do we not know what we know at all. This is a major reason for an utterly
> out of data Catalogue of Life, a broken link system from a taxonomic name
> to the taxonomic treatment, the referenced specimens, sequences, that is
> the door to the literature better knowledge about the species.
>
>
>
> Open science in the digital internet era is a huge benefit to our science,
> allows spreading its knowledge. This is what we want, we need and are
> obliged to do in the age of drastic disappearing biodiversity.
>
>
>
> Open science is an advantage to science. It needs to be underpinned with
> an adequate infrastructure. It needs publishers that can publish in a
> semantic enhanced way so that the data is immediately reusable. It needs
> functional services such as IPNI, Zoobank, Catalogue of Life, Biodiversity
> Literature Repository, BHL, GBIF, or DiSSCo or idigBio or large scale
> sequencing projects.
>
>
>
> Open science is exactly what we need. We want to be able to critically
> review research results, such as what is at the base of the description of
> a new species: Which specimens, which characters, what kind of sequence or
> other data. We want to be able to understand the growth of data related to
> a taxon by making use of the citations of previous literature. Open science
> and its tools allow this.
>
>
>
> Open science is not a threat or stupid, it makes your work visible, it
> raises the profile of taxonomy by allowing linking between specimens,
> sequences, taxonomic names and research results.
>
>
>
> Open science will help us to overcome to logjam we have to create a
> Catalogue of Life with all the automation that is possible, curatorial
> tools to correct possible errors in the processing. It thus will help us to
> liberate us out of this incredible awkward situation that we do now know
> what we know because we have not learned how to publish properly nor deal
> with the daily increasing number of publication adding the estimated 500
> Million pages of literature of biodiversity, that, among others,
> encompasses the entire catalogue of life.
>
>
>
> Funding for open science does not compete with our taxonomic research
> funds. Rather the opposite, if we can show that what vibrant and relevant
> field we work in, more money will be diverted for charting and
> understanding global biodiversity.
>
>
>
> For the first time since Linnaeus, we have the chance to be able to build
> a system that provides access to all the knowledge we haven, similar to the
> Systema Naturae at his time.
>
>
>
> Open science also means collaboration, and this is happening at grand
> scale, not least because our community can compete against science projects
> from other domains and attract funding, because we are devoted to open
> access, make our data accessible to anybody anywhere at anytime.
>
>
>
> Finally, it increases dramatically access from any place where
> biodiversity disappears the fastest: Any student, scientist or
> conservationist has access too, not just we in the North.
>
>
>
> Together we are now building an incredible infrastructure – our
> infrastructure owned by the scientists, run by scientists for the
> scientists. An open infrastructure to anybody to preserve the worlds
> biodiversity to create innovations that through taxes enabling the science
> foundations or philanthropic Funds  spend money on its development, with an
> emphasis on generating new and recovering existing knowledge about our
> biodiversity. An infrastructure that allows to document and give credit to
> each of the scientists contribution.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Donat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of KD
> Dijkstra via Taxacom
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 11:10 AM
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <
> biotemail at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL SENDER
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think no genuine scientist opposes “open science”. But people are right
> to be skeptical if “science” embraces “openness” after pushing for
> “closedness” for decades. More means to share knowledge are great, but only
> make sense if the field isn’t designed to be fundamentally competitive. If
> institutes need large grants to stay afloat and “high ranking” papers are
> the ticket to getting them, peer review of manuscripts and applications
> will continue to be an exercise in tearing each other down, for example. So
> it’s hard to have truly “open science” as long as impact factors determine
> everything, or as long as research consortia are consistently favored over
> individual brilliance.
>
>
>
> Personally, I feel more “open” scientists aren’t always encouraged.
>
> Taxonomy and natural history are very public sciences, benefitting
> non-academics directly and disproportionately. The fundamental problem
> there is that funders (and indeed most scientists) don’t appreciate the
> difference between information (i.e. units of hard data) and expertise
> (that fuzzy familiarity with a topic). Organizations and institutes, for
> example, happily invest in infrastructure to collate species records,
> because from there it seems to work by itself. They invest much less in
> improving or even stimulating those data, e.g. with taxonomic works like
> field guides that increase the quality of what comes in, or by creating
> capacity to vet those data. And why would they? Quantitatively the
> infrastructure is already successful, with data rushing in, and only a few
> specialists can judge the actual quality, most of whom are so passionate
> they’ll do it (almost) for free.
>
>
>
> So the second problem is that we can’t dream of “open science” as long as
> lucrative research that keeps scientists ensconced in their “ivory towers”
>
> is favored. Genomics and big data analysis, for example, may be very
> relevant scientifically, or even benefit mankind as a whole, but for the
> average individual it’s not especially engaging or enlightening. If we want
> science to be “open”, we must invest in those that are already close to the
> public.
>
>
>
> Summarizing, seeing “open science” as mainly an infrastructural challenge
> in the current academic climate has two main drawbacks. Firstly, the risk
> of any investment being captured by established interests is great, as
> Stephen put forward. Secondly, it detracts from the actual solution, which
> is to invest in “open scientists”, including communicative specialists with
> accessible interests.
>
>
>
> Cheers, KD
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
>
> *KD (Klaas-Douwe) B Dijkstra*
>
> See my new website! kddijkstra.nl
>
> key appearances and publications
>
> <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434831676&sdata=Xk90OHG90KwhkTlzd1cgw0HLOzO4wRTEKkCrNORHPTo%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> my work <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-work&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434831676&sdata=xUGhafOaixnrc3PzGveqcOiOhF1Yxb9TkY9Aj%2B82Mh8%3D&reserved=0>
> and my species <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-species&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=zB4ichCqdZNRAt5cyJlD8BGH5MI1PvagXlK2Sn0Bvhw%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> African Dragonflies and Damselflies Online <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faddo.adu.org.za%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=beqs3x6Vsx6ch0TxYPL3D%2BRcHqOsinj8M7U%2BfQ7pg5M%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 01:03, Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >  Carlos,I am calm, I'm just saying it as it is. What you describe is
>
> > an idealistic vision of how things might pan out, but I strongly
>
> > suspect that the way things actually pan out will be determined by the
> power of the $.
>
> > Publishers aren't going to give up their current profit margins
>
> > without a fight, and if they can negotiate a mutually profitable deal
>
> > with publicly funded research institutions to secure a bigger share of
>
> > the public purse, then that is by far the most likely outcome. There
>
> > is already a lot of "spin", putting this in terms of "public good",
>
> > i.e. "free" access by the public to publicly funded research, when it
>
> > is nothing of the sort!Cheers, Stephen
>
> >     On Wednesday, 4 March 2020, 09:37:08 pm UTC, Carlos Alberto
>
> > Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >  Hi Stephen,What you have not understood is that:1) by shifting from
>
> > for-profit OA private publishing to non-profit OA academic publishing
>
> > we could cut OA expenses down by up to 1/3 of the current expenses
>
> > and2) use those funds to actually produce more OA research or to
>
> > maintain the actual level while investing more on platform
>
> > development.Calm down, drink some ice tea and read my emails again.
>
> > You will see that I already explained 1 and 2. Of course that no
>
> > technology can help us against greed. That's why we have to fight it,
>
> > no matter if it comes from private publishers, from institutions or from
> unscrupulous scientists or managerial staff.
>
> > Cheers,Carlos
>
> > Carlos A. Martínez MuñozZoological Museum, Biodiversity UnitFI-20014
>
> > University of TurkuFinlandResearchGate profileMyriapod Morphology and
>
> > Evolution
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > El mié., 4 mar. 2020 a las 22:16, Stephen Thorpe (<
>
> > stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>) escribió:
>
> >
>
> >  "In the context of pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges,"
>
> > diverting $billions of public funds into OA/OS initiatives, so as to
>
> > boost the profits of research institutions working with public money,
>
> > is clearly one of the biggest con jobs of the 21st Century. It has to
>
> > result in
>
> > either: (1) less research being done with the same amount of public
>
> > funding; or(2) more public funding being diverted to science to
>
> > maintain the same level of research, funding which cannot therefore be
>
> > spent on "pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges".
>
> > Witness the subterfuges used by the wealthy half (third, quarter?) of
>
> > humanity to further their own interests at the expense of the
>
> > interests of "the outgroup"...
>
> > Stephen
>
> >     On Wednesday, 4 March 2020, 10:41:59 am UTC, Carlos Alberto
>
> > Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >  Dear Taxacomers,
>
> > Please note that the questionnaire for inputs into the development of
>
> > the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation is available online here (
>
> >
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.u
>
> > nesco.org%2Fnews%2Funesco-launches-global-consultation-develop-standar
>
> > d-setting-instrument-open-science&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org
>
> > %7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76
>
> > %7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=cN6Ir6h4lUzA9M5lEZEFw259gxnMUX
>
> > 997QBTAK%2FADXI%3D&reserved=0
>
> > )
>
> > and here (
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FN958HFW&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=IAbnu7tcTYeikL%2FuLLUBrASK5uTPE6QYyyVWhCza3XI%3D&reserved=0
> ).
>
> >
>
> > In the context of pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges,
>
> > sustainable and innovative solutions must be supported by an
>
> > efficient, transparent and vibrant scientific effort - not only
>
> > stemming from the scientific community, but from the whole society.
>
> > Open Science embodies the need to transform and democratize the entire
>
> > scientific process to ensure that science truly drives and enables the
>
> > achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for the
> benefits of all.
>
> >
>
> > Driven by unprecedented advances in our digital world, the transition
>
> > to Open Science allows scientific information, data and outputs to be
>
> > more widely accessible (Open Access) and more reliably harnessed (Open
>
> > Data) with the active engagement of all relevant stakeholders (Open to
> Society).
>
> > However, in the fragmented scientific and policy environment, a global
>
> > understanding of the meaning, opportunities and challenges of Open
>
> > Science is still missing.
>
> >
>
> > UNESCO, as the United Nations Agency with a mandate for Science, is
>
> > the legitimate global organization enabled to build a coherent vision
>
> > of Open Science and a shared set of overarching principles and shared
>
> > values. That is why, at the 40th session of UNESCO’s General
>
> > Conference, 193 Member States tasked the Organization with the
>
> > development of an international standard-setting instrument on Open
>
> > Science in the form of a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.
>
> >
>
> > UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science will be prepared through a
>
> > regionally balanced, multistakeholder, inclusive and transparent
> consultation process.
>
> > This process is guided by an Open Science Advisory Committee and is
>
> > expected to lead to the adoption of the Recommendation by UNESCO
>
> > Member States in 2021.
>
> >
>
> > As UNESCO launches its consultation process on Open Science, an online
>
> > survey is designed to conduct inputs from all the regions and the
>
> > interested stakeholders, about aspects, benefits and challenges of
>
> > Open Science across the globe.
>
> >
>
> > All Open Science stakeholders, including scientists and scientific
>
> > institutes, science publishers, science policy makers etc., are
>
> > encouraged to participate and  to share their insights trough a global
>
> > survey
>
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>
> > .surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FN958HFW&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=IAbnu7tcTYeikL%2FuLLUBrASK5uTPE6QYyyVWhCza3XI%3D&reserved=0>.
> In addition, you can help the collection of a broader perspective on Open
> Science by sharing this survey among your network.
>
> >
>
> > The questionnaire is also available for download <
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.u
>
> > nesco.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fquestionnaire_unesco_open_scienc
>
> > e.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c
>
> > 0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C63718999843484166
>
> > 7&sdata=%2FOWxUxyxJnrZYO1F2%2Fh62TIkqZNAyIrY%2FEq205S1hlo%3D&r
>
> > eserved=0
>
> > >.
>
> > It can be filled offline and sent to us by email at:
>
> > openscience at unesco.org
>
> > (link sends e-mail) <openscience at unesco.org>.
>
> >
>
> > I wonder if some day we will pair the Codes of Nomenclature with Open
>
> > Science and mandate that all new names and nomenclatural acts, to be
>
> > available, have to be published open access. Names form the basis of
>
> > our biodiversity informatics services and they shouldn't continue to
>
> > be born in paywalled publications. We are the keepers of scientific
>
> > names and taxon descriptions. We should strive for them to be accessible.
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
>
> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
>
> > FI-20014 University of Turku
>
> > Finland
>
> > ResearchGate profile
>
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>
> > .researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=02%7C01%7
>
> > Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b949
>
> > 6883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637189998434841667&sdata=K%2Fpt95trzT
>
> > %2Fz%2FWl7hPFtoEs9jmzYLxZhpnGV%2BhwCIuc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> > Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
>
> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>
> > .facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%
>
> > 40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb3
>
> > 4586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637189998434841667&sdata=t3KMR1wbvPWdyclrVhei
>
> > ni62TkIV%2Fr5ITH2w1teDL9Q%3D&reserved=0>
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Taxacom Mailing List
>
> >
>
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm
>
> > an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0
>
> > 1%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b
>
> > 9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BA
>
> > jWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0
>
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac
>
> > om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1
>
> > c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C6371899
>
> > 98434841667&sdata=sa2wf%2B6JBAC7n9%2B3hl9hmEPPhlMRF%2F0kN%2FC2aKb%
>
> > 2Bjk8%3D&reserved=0
>
> >
>
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Taxacom Mailing List
>
> >
>
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm
>
> > an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0
>
> > 1%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b
>
> > 9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BA
>
> > jWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0
>
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac
>
> > om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1
>
> > c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C6371899
>
> > 98434841667&sdata=sa2wf%2B6JBAC7n9%2B3hl9hmEPPhlMRF%2F0kN%2FC2aKb%
>
> > 2Bjk8%3D&reserved=0
>
> >
>
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
>
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BAjWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434851662&sdata=1jNPztCvkGp1ktzBKl1UphGtXKF%2F23kF17QAllS%2B4iQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list