[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 173, Issue 10

Scott Thomson scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 15:41:47 CDT 2020


Hi everyone,

Been told I made a serious typo in my last message to the group, included
below.

In the last sentence I meant they should NOT get sway with it.

My apologies if this confused anyone, was a typo left a word out.

Cheers Scott

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 3:46 PM Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> From a nomenclatural standpoint the name would stand as available even if
> the holotype was destroyed. So in the end the Code has little ability to
> act on this. However, my view would be to become involved in the
> investigation, and if it shows laws were broken then the authorities should
> be encouraged to transfer the specimen back to the country of origin and
> deposit it in a museum there. Stating it is a holotype and the importance
> of this needs to be acknowledged. However a clear statement should be made
> against the authors and the museum involved if they knowingly assisted with
> this. As a scientist collecting without a licence and not following
> international law etc should be an almost career ending issue. Although I
> would in this scenario encourage finding a way to preserve the type purely
> for nomenclatural reasons I also think the perpetrators of this situation
> should end up getting away with it.
>
> Cheers Scott
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 6:11 PM Lynn Raw via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> I suggest that you ask the nomenclatural part of your questions on the
>> ICZN list. I suspect that the name will stand even if the holotype is
>> destroyed as long as it was validly described in terms of the Code in the
>> first place. The legal questions are something else and may involve
>> international law as well as the laws of the relevant countries. It seems
>> that science will be the loser if the specimen is destroyed but it will not
>> affect the nomenclature. I am no expert on the subject hence my suggestion
>> that you consult the members of the ICZN list.
>>
>> Lynn Raw
>>
>> > On 27 Sep 2020, at 10.10, Hinrich Kaiser via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Colleagues,
>> > Expanding on the apparent tarantula problem, I was wondering whether I
>> could receive opinions on the following actual scenario (without specifics,
>> to protect individuals' and institutions' identities).
>> > A new species from a group of CITES Appendix II animals was described
>> based on a single specimen with legally and ethically questionable origin
>> in a non-peer reviewed publication. The following information can be
>> gleaned from the paper describing the species: The specimen was collected
>> by unnamed local villagers, collecting date not provided, who sold it to a
>> named facilitator. There is no further explanation how the specimen crossed
>> at least three international borders to eventually end up accessioned in a
>> major collection, but personnel of the receiving institution are
>> acknowledged in the paper for facilitating accession of the specimen. There
>> is no mention of any collecting permit.
>> > Upon a request for information, it became clear that the permitting
>> authority in the country of origin was unaware of any collecting activity
>> of this taxon in the time from the country's independence to the paper's
>> publication date. The country of import has very specific requirements for
>> importation of CITES II species from the country of origin and it is
>> unclear whether any compliance paperwork was filed. Verbal requests to the
>> institution for permit and collecting information were strongly rebuffed.
>> > My questions are as follows:(1) Should this issue be examined to ensure
>> proper procedure was followed?
>> > (2) If it appears that proper procedure was not followed, the specimen
>> may be removed from the institution's care (this is the normal process with
>> illegally collected CITES material in the country in question). In many
>> instances, specimens are subsequently destroyed, which means that the
>> holotype would no longer be extant. The specimen would certainly lose its
>> status as owned by the institution (i.e., it would likely have to be
>> deaccessioned).
>> > (3) Other than the obvious issue with the holotype not being available
>> for study after its removal from the institution (probably necessitating
>> the designation of a neotype), should such an issue in any way impact the
>> validity of the original description? An alternative available name exists.
>> > These are complex questions that tangle with law enforcement,
>> professional ethics, taxonomy, and nomenclature. I think most would agree
>> that illegal specimens should not be used to describe species and
>> institutions should certainly not assist by "laundering" such material.
>> However, there really is no path to fix something like this, or is there?
>> > Thanks for your input.Hinrich
>> >
>> > Hinrich Kaiser PhD FLS
>> > Executive Vice President for Global Sourcing, B2B Food Services, Inc.
>> > Professor of Biology, Victor Valley CollegeEditor-in-Chief, Herpetology
>> NotesGuest Researcher, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander
>> KoenigResearch Associate, USNM, Smithsonian InstitutionExecutive Committee
>> Member, World Congress of Herpetology
>> > PeaceJam Representative of Nobel Peace Laureate José Ramos-HortaMember,
>> Int. Advisory Board, Foundation for Post-Conflict Development
>> >
>> > Please note: This email and its attachments (if any) are confidential
>> and intended solely for the named recipient.
>> >
>> >
>> >    On Saturday, September 26, 2020, 08:18:19 PM GMT+2,
>> taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>> >
>> > When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
>> your reply.
>> > ____________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >   1. Early warning (Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz)
>> >   2. Re: Early warning (Sergio Henriques)
>> >   3. Re: Early warning (Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz)
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 12:30:42 +0300
>> > From: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
>> > To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> > Subject: [Taxacom] Early warning
>> > Message-ID:
>> >     <CACA4WzAaAo9bfJh+jF0xuJMfaBFJG95OkBd3X8_MPyaiEdkd7A at mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> >
>> > Dear Taxacomers,
>> > I see signs of a new species of tarantula being in process of
>> description.
>> > The researcher already published a non-spider species based on material
>> > that was illegally collected and illegally imported to Europe. Based on
>> the
>> > timing of events, the spiders may have the same or similar origin. I
>> > encourage journal editors and reviewers to extra check for legal origin
>> of
>> > tarantula specimens, and to keep an eye open for incomplete specimen
>> data,
>> > such as collectors not stated in the manuscript. Illegal trade of
>> > tarantulas is decimating wild populations, and the last thing that I
>> want
>> > to see is researchers fueling it.
>> > I also raise the issue that attempted whitewashing of illegal specimens
>> > through scientific papers harms the entire taxonomic community. We may
>> not
>> > notice when new species based on illegal specimens come to light, but
>> every
>> > time this happens, the network of illegal collectors and dealers do
>> know.
>> > Then, just because of scientific misconduct of a few researchers, we all
>> > end up seen as hypocrites that "do it too".
>> > Another thing. When these cases happen and the holding institution
>> > discovers that it ended up receiving illegal specimens, my position is
>> that
>> > there are no excuses for not returning the specimens to the country of
>> > origin.
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
>> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
>> > FI-20014 University of Turku
>> > Finland
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
>
> Chelonian Research Institute
> 402 South Central Avenue,
> Oviedo, 32765, Florida, USA
>
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> 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
> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 95768 5811
>
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list