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

[Alex McKelvy]

I don't think these folks consider these taxa as "his" so to speak, it is
likely they mostly ignore him until one of his errors becomes apparent,
make fun of him in a way they know he will react badly and further dig a
hole for his cause, work on their project with a keen eye for proper
procedure, adjust as need be, and move on. There is no real confusion if
you make the decision to ignore the Australasian Journal of Herpetology.


On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> Well, in my experience Hoser is just at one extreme of a continuum. He
> behaves very badly, but renaming his taxa just doesn't really help, does
> it? It just adds to the confusion. That's all I'm complaining about. I'm
> not defendi ng Hoser, I'm just saying that renaming his taxa as one's own
> is not really helping anybody.
>
> Stephen
>
>   *From:* Alex McKelvy <amckelvy at gc.cuny.edu>
> *To:* Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> *Cc:* Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; "jkoler at ccountry.net" <
> jkoler at ccountry.net>; "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.
>
>  Hi Stephen,
>
> You say:
>
> "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!"
>
> I think it's worth noting that while squabbles and sloppy work certainly
> exist in professional taxonomy, the venue for these disputes remains just
> that - professional. Rather than use a fancy blog and YouTube while
> operating under a perceived paradigm that the world is out to get you,
> taxonomists usually respond in a professional manner to correct or dispute
> mistakes in the peer reviewed literature. They don't send letters and
> petitions to "offending" authors' institutions calling for their dismissal
> or include accusations of rigging online competitions in their papers. It
> is for these reasons that I believe most professional herpetologists view
> his work as a somewhat morbid curiosity rather than just pseudoscience.
> While I understand that these sentiments have absolutely nothing to do with
> the code, I hope it provides some background as to why folks are so fast to
> defend good science. With statements from Mr. Hoser such as "Yes if you
> buy any major books published on snakes in the last ten years you will see
> the names of Raymond Hoser and other Snakebusters team members cited as
> experts", how can an expert in the field not be somewhat taken aback?
>
>
>  On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander D. McKelvy
> College of Staten Island / CUNY Graduate Center
> Department of Biology
> 2800 Victory Blvd. 6S-143
> Staten Island, NY 10314
> Office Phone: (718)-982-4209
> Mobile: (989) 859-8828
> http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/~mckelvy/
>
>
>


-- 
Alexander D. McKelvy
College of Staten Island / CUNY Graduate Center
Department of Biology
2800 Victory Blvd. 6S-143
Staten Island, NY 10314
Office Phone: (718)-982-4209
Mobile: (989) 859-8828
http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/~mckelvy/