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

[Neal Evenhuis]

An author doesn't have to know if a specimen he chooses as a type is
"actually" different as long as he says it is and he believes it. What the
Code does is nomenclature. Hoser met the requirements of nomenclature to
make the names available.

What you are asking is to determine if the species is taxonomically valid.
THAT is not what the Code does -- that is what taxonomists do. Your
questions are of proper taxonomic protocol for a particular discipline in
zoology, not nomenclature.

The Code can minimize through its Articles and glossary the amount of
taxonomic mistakes that may take place or minimize abuse of the privilege
to do taxonomy correctly through following a nomenclatural protocol, but
humans are at the other end of the problem and they can do whatever they
want -- and taxonomic "mistakes" can only be fixed by other taxonomists.

-Neal

On Stardate 4/11/14 5:49 PM, "jkoler at ccountry.net" <jkoler at ccountry.net>
wrote:

>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
>


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.