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

[jkoler at ccountry.net]

Neal said: > 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.

I know nothing about these specimens nor their appearance in a data base
as "occurrence." BUT I am confused. Are the relevant diagnostic traits
visible in a picture of this "occurrence" holotype, or are there
measurements, drawings or photos of the specimen Hoster chose as holotype
for this new species in a reference he cited? If not, then how can he know
the holotype is indeed a different species than it was originally
identified as belonging to? Have I missed some important factors?

Jan