Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to commit scientific theft and fraud.

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Apr 11 21:30:07 CDT 2014 

Yes, I'm not going to quibble with Neal over minor details, but just a few final general comments: 
?
(1) It is interesting that, as far as I can tell, Hoser has never been guilty of trashing other people's names for taxa and then renaming them himself. Yet others are doing that to him;
?
(2) If there is already a name for a taxon, then, unless it is 110% certain that it is unavailable, just treat it as being available (though not necessarily as valid, of course!);
?
(3) If it does seem certain that existing names are unavailable, then rename them with the same names, in order to minimise the confusion and instability. The authorship will be different, but we can live with that.
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA" <stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>; "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: 
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to commit scientific theft and fraud.


OK. I've lurked enough.

I've had a look at all the relevant material in Hoser's case and have
concluded that his names are indeed available. His claim that a database
was changed is actually irrelevant, since he was basing his taxa on
specimen numbers, which do indeed refer to actual specimens (see further
below on this). Someone in this thread (maybe Hoser) obfuscated the word
"occurrence" into "observation" and things got blown out of proportion
after that.

Here's how I see the situation and relevant Code compliance:

Hoser in April 2013 published a paper that described two new taxa. The
names in that paper were described in such a way so as to fulfill all of
the criteria in the Code to meet availability: he gives characters to
differentiate, he said the new taxa were "new", he based his description
on a type series, he gave individual specimen numbers for those specimens,
and he specified the type depository.

The Code Glossary says that a "type series" is whatever specimens the
author indicates as included in it. Hoser gave type numbers indicating
exactly which specimens were in his type series.

He selected one of them as a holotype.

He gave the location of the type depository.

As for actual specimens, here is where Hoser screwed things up. No. Not in
making his names available. He screwed up in his video, which has got
everyone on this thread all hot and bothered. He claims someone changed
the database and points to the HerpNet database showing the word
"occurrence" and a blank for "Preparation type".

Based on that, he concluded that someone changed the database from actual
specimens existing to "observations". There is NO word "observation" in
that database. The word is "occurrence". Which in database parlance may
have a totally different meaning -- I have seen it mean a specimen
"occurs" in the specified collection, but more data is needed to properly
fill out the form (but again -- this is IRRELEVANT, so don't focus on
this).

However, where he screwed up is by not looking at the Florida Museum
database itself, where his types are stored. In that database, there is a
column "Specimens" and the number "1" for each specimen number entry for
the numbers he used in his type series. Thus, specimens do indeed exist
and Hoser was within the definition of the Code in specifying exactly
which of these specimens was in his type series.

There is nothing in the Code that requires an author to actually handle,
see, or have in front of him actual specimens. Bibliographic reference is
allowed (which means an author is not actually "seeing" specimens), and
that has been abused in the past to make available names in a quick and
dirty fashion. By using specimens from a database, Hoser was essentially
doing the same thing -- vicariously slecting actual specimens that were
identified as X from a certain locality and he knew these to be different
from other taxa and described them as new giving the defining characters.
But he did not actually "see" the specimens.

Surely we do not condone this type of method of making available names of
new taxa, but despite the abhorrence we may have to such methods, Hoser's
names are available and his foes unfortunately knee-jerked on this one and
created unnecessary synonyms.

my 2 cents,

-Neal



On Stardate 4/11/14 3:45 PM, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

>All this goes back to another recent thread in which we briefly touched
>on what exactly it means to designate a holotype in a Code compliant way.
>It is very unclear to me whether or not Code compliance in this regard is
>purely a procedural matter in the original publication, or whether it
>depends at all, or how much, on factors external to the publication, such
>as whether the designated specimen actually exists, was ever labelled, or
>was ever deposited anywhere. I note the following in the Code:
>
>16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a
>statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection
>and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection
>
>Hoser can perhaps say in the present example that his holotypes aren't
>extant specimens (not to be confused with specimens of extant species, by
>the way!), so he didn't even need the statement of intent to deposit!
>
>It seems to me that the present Code (and past versions thereof) allows
>too much latitude for nonstandard non-best practice, and is vague and
>ambiguous enough to allow anyone with an agenda to argue for pretty much
>whatever they like!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Stephen
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>To: "Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA" <stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>;
>"iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>;
>"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Sent:
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>
>
>Looking at this in some more detail, the argument by Thomas et al. (2014)
>, against Hoser (2013), is highly dubious! Even if it is true (which is
>certainly not obvious from the online database entries), that the
>designated holotypes are field sightings only, Thomas et al. invoke Art.
>16.4! See
>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article&nfv=true#
>4
>Please note also:
>Recommendation 73B. Preference for specimens studied by author. An author
>should designate as holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her,
>not a specimen known to the author only from descriptions or
>illustrations in the literature.
>
>It may not be best practice, by a long chalk, but Hoser may have validly
>designated a holotype by way of a field sighting of that individual, no
>part of which is preserved. He may not have even seen or studied the
>holotype, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE NEW NAMES UNAVAILABLE! At least it
>is very unclear, so Hoser should be given the benefit of the doubt.
>Thomas et al. (2014) are just acting as "bully boys" against Hoser. The
>taxa that they describe as new already had names, so they are guilty of
>adding to confusion and instability. Of course, Hoser is also being his
>usual self, i.e. a complete twit, but twittery has no consequences for
>nomenclature ...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Stephen
>
>________________________________
>From: "Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA" <stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>
>To: "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>;
>"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Sent:
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>
>I was only commenting on the availability of the two names in question
>from Ray?s paper, relative to what seems to be the situation according to
>Ray?s own youtube video. I am not commenting on anything really beyond
>that, and I?m not on one ?side? or the other. I don?t know if Ray laid
>his eyes on any specimen of those species/subspecies he described, but if
>he didn?t, I just don?t know what to say? He could have asked the curator
>in Florida for a picture? something. But he certainly could not have
>looked at the specimens he designated as holotypes, as they were
>observation records only. To be kind here, I find that to be bad form at
>a minimum. But one thing seems clear ? if what Ray presented is so ? then
>the two species-group names in question were not made available by Ray?s
>paper. What Ray?s foes did in the Zootaxa paper may be outside of
>standard etiquette, but I have no comment about that.
>Cheers,
>Steve
>
>
>From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 4:58 PM
>To: Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA; iczn-list at afriherp.org;
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>Well, what he actually said is vague and ambiguous. I was invoking the
>principle of charity to attribute to him the most sensible possible
>interpretation, in line with scientific etiquette. Anyway, this whole
>thing stinks. I haven't read over the relevant papers yet, but I will do
>so now (and will also send Hoser the full Zootaxa article). Just to
>preempt the conclusion slightly, I suggest that renaming other peoples
>taxa should only be done if it is 100% certain that the earlier names are
>unavailable for some reason.
>Cheers,
>Stephen
>
>From: "Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA"
><stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov<mailto:stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>>
>To: "iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>"
><iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>>;
>"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>"
><taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
>Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>That?s not what he said. His explicit meaning was that his species is
>available because, hey, look, they cited one of the paratypes. That of
>course is nonsense. If it was not described properly under the Code, such
>that the name is unavailable, those ?paratypes? are utterly meaningless
>anyway, except to refer to an author?s concept for a taxon prior to its
>description. It would be no different than my writing in a paper that I
>have an unnamed new species that has characteristics X, Y and Z, and here
>is the label data.
>Cheers,
>Steve
>
>From: Stephen Thorpe
>[mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>]
>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:38 PM
>To: Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA<mailto:Stephen at CDFA>;
>iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>;
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>Steve,
>I think I understand what Raymond was meaning here, and if so, he is
>correct. Although paratypes have no name bearing status, they do have a
>function (or else we wouldn't have them!) Their function is as a
>(fallible) guide to what taxon the author had in mind when they named the
>new species. So, if you cannot examine a holotype for some reason,
>examination of paratype(s) is the next best thing to determine the
>species if the description isn't altogether clear.
>Cheers,
>Stephen
>
>From: "Gaimari, Stephen at CDFA<mailto:Stephen at CDFA>"
><stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov<mailto:stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov><mailto:st
>ephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov<mailto:stephen.gaimari at cdfa.ca.gov>>>
>To:
>"iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org><mailto:iczn-list at af
>riherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>>"
><iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org><mailto:iczn-list at af
>riherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>>>;
>"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxa
>com at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>"
><taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxa
>com at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>>
>Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014 5:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>Another thing to point out, regarding your youtube video. You claim that
>they examined one of your type specimens - by the number this was a
>paratype. You go on to say that the paratypes are essentially next in
>line if the holotype is lost.
>You said "if the paratype gets lost, it resorts to paratypes, which is
>exactly why they are allocated". That is not true at all. Paratypes have
>no name bearing status.
>Cheers,
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.e
>du>
>[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.
>nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of
>Frank.Krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:09 AM
>To: viper007 at live.com.au<mailto:viper007 at live.com.au>;
>iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>;
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to
>commit scientific theft and fraud.
>
>Raymond,
>You cannot trust databases. They always contain mistakes and are
>constantly updated, corrected, or new mistakes get introduced.
>So the main question is: When did you physically examine and label your
>holotypes? When did you hold the specimens in your hand?
>Frank
>
>
>Dr. Frank-T. Krell
>Curator of Entomology
>Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Chair,
>ICZN ZooBank Committee Department of Zoology Denver Museum of Nature &
>Science
>2001 Colorado Boulevard
>Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
>Frank.Krell at dmns.org<mailto:Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
>Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
>Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
>http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
>lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>
>The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of
>critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as
>responsible stewards of the future.
>
>
>
>From:
>iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org>
>[mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.o
>rg>] On Behalf Of Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman
>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:47 AM
>To: iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>;
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: [iczn-list] Fraudulent alteration of databases to commit
>scientific theft and fraud.
>
>Dear all,
>
>This week a paper was published renaming two turtles I named in a paper
>published last year.
>The paper alleges my types were never held at the University of Florida,
>based on an online database record, showing my holotype specimens as
>sighting records only (as opposed to bodies at the place).
>Going on to assert my descriptions are therefore null and void, the
>authors (10 listed) go on and rename the species using the same data.
>Now if the claim were to be correct, the action would be OK.
>However I have been able to show quite easily that the relevant database
>entries have been fraudulently altered along with a total of about 150
>others in a serious act of badly executed scientific fraud, committed to
>justify the ultimate action of improperly renaming the two turtles.
>BTW. The details of the case are in a 20 minute video posted here
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1hv_GEVf9U&feature=youtu.be
>My question is has anyone else here ever encountered this sort of caper
>before?
>
>Raymond Hoser
>
>Snakebusters*<http://www.snakebusters.com.au/> - Australia's best
>reptiles* The only hands-on reptiles* shows that lets people hold the
>animals*.
>Reptile parties*<http://www.reptileparties.com.au/>, events, courses
>Phones: 9812 3322
>0412 777 211
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.


This message is only intended for the addressee named above.? Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.? Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.? If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.? Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list