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

[Stephen Thorpe]

Just to add a bit more to what Neal has correctly said, though I don't expect him to agree with me here, but taxonomists should not be allowed to make judgements on the availability of names, only on their validity. Otherwise, there is too much of a temptation to dismiss existing names and rename the very same taxa, thus claiming authorship/authority of the taxa. If a taxonomist has doubts over the availability of a name (or publication), the proper thing to do is for them to petition the ICZN for an official?ruling. Existing usage must be maintained until the ruling is made, which would mean in the present case that Hoser's names would stand unless officially decided otherwise in a published Opinion by the ICZN. The ICZN should also be impartial and objective in their ruling. This is the way things are supposed to work. Ahh, the perfect world, dream on!
?
Also, I find it upalatable for so much scrutiny to be put on Hoser's work, when I have seen supposedly "bona fide" taxonomists do all sorts of silly and/or dodgy things like attributing characters to new taxa which the taxa don't have, massive disparities between written descriptions and accompanying illustrations, and all sorts of mistakes involving type designations, such as designating two different holotypes for the same new species!
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: "jkoler at ccountry.net" <jkoler at ccountry.net> 
Cc: "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.


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. 

_______________________________________________
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.