[Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

Wouter Addink wouter.addink at naturalis.nl
Sat Mar 7 03:27:53 CST 2020


Hi Stephen,
I  am amazed to see you talking about OA as something for the future while
it is common practice already. Most funders require it nowadays and the
next generation will find closed access a strange thing from the past. If
you did not get the message about the benefits of OA during the last
decade, then I think you will never get it. The scientific community at
large is way past the stage of discussing that subject. Already the present
generation is cursing their old colleagues for having made it so difficult
to provide scientific outputs in the past or worse, they are simply
ignoring these.

I am also amazed to see though, that there are still many authors not using
their ORCID iD in OA publications or maintain their ORCID iD without any
public information about their publications. I think there might even still
be researchers who do not have an ORCID iD, although I don't know any.

Kind regards,
Wouter

Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 21:41 schreef Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:

>  John,I doubt if OA is going to free up every publication you might want.
> Note that it only applies to publications of publicly funded research.
> There is still nothing to stop taxonomists using private funding for
> research and publishing expensive books or in private journals.As for
> climate change, I think that the issue is being driven by vested interests
> and so the truth of the matter is obscured. I have no doubt that human
> activity is slowly destroying the planet. It is inevitable for a small
> planet with finite resources. It is as inevitable as death is for any
> individual living being. I have yet to detect any significant changes here
> in Auckland which point to an imminent climate change crisis. I don't think
> any proposed measures to mitigate the "crisis" will be effective.Stephen
>     On Friday, 6 March 2020, 08:21:02 pm UTC, John Grehan <
> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  It seems that no matter what choice is made when it comes to money,
> whether what is current, or what is proposed, someone or other is going to
> benefit. I guess its a matter of judgement as to whether the status quo is
> better or worse than some proposed change. Stephen, when you say that
> climate change is a push for wealth transfer, are you saying that climate
> change is a fiction as a certain president says, or that its real, but the
> actions proposed are designed to transfer wealth to certain individuals? If
> the latter, is it better to do nothing at all - in your opinion? Just
> asking for clarification and won't pursue any further as its off the
> taxonomic topic.
> While many science publications are fairly easily obtained, the 'fairly'
> is relative. There are still important (for me) publications that are not
> accessible when one does not work for a wealthy institution or is
> personally wealthy enough to pay.
> John Grehan
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 3:01 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>  Yes, John, the OA/OS is by no means the biggest contributor to money
> wastage, but it is a potential contributor nonetheless. It is yet another
> example of how "the system" works. The U.S. defence budget is possibly the
> biggest single contributor to money wastage. However, I have no connections
> with such things, so science is what I'm concerned about, not politics or
> military spending. What irks me is that the OA/OS movement closely
> parallels several other bandwagons currently at play, e.g. (1) climate
> change, which can be seen as a push for a wealth transfer from the old oil
> based elite to a new generation of more "ecofriendly" billionaires in
> waiting; (2) "insect armageddon", which is nothing more than scaremongering
> with a fiction intended to secure/justify more funding; and, in N.Z., (3)
> predator eradication. Back to OA/OS, bear in mind that much science is
> fairly low grade and not of any/much actual benefit to anyone. Sucking
> public funding to make all that stuff open is pointless. Note also that we
> already have several ways in which science publications can easily be
> obtained OA (e.g. ResearchGate, Sci-Hub, BHL, etc.), and a lot can be
> achieved if scientists respond to PDF requests via email, etc. Note that
> some literature availably freely on BHL continues to also be for sale at
> substantial cost from publisher websites!
> Stephen
>     On Friday, 6 March 2020, 06:56:26 pm UTC, John Grehan <
> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Not to mention the quadra zillions spent on political fundraising (at
> least here in the US). Maybe one year's campaigning would cover all
> publication costs globally?
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:52 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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