[Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Sun Apr 13 10:16:16 CDT 2014

Raymond,
don't use database records as the basis for your assumptions on the existence of specimens. Study the specimens, for heaven's sake!
Try to improve your methods, and your papers.
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 
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 [iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman [viper007 at live.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:06 AM
To: Wulf Schleip; 'Doug Yanega'; 'iczn-list'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; rwrossco at gmail.com; envirodata at hotmail.com; richard.funk at vcahospitals.com
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Welcome Mr Wulf Schleip, a listed co-author of Kaiser et al. 2013 (better known as Wuster et al) and the man who has spent the last 15 years doing everything legal and illegal to stop use of any taxonomic proposals I have made.
Yes, you are one of the "rogues" who has actively campaigned for people to step outside the zoological code and rename species previously named by others at your own warped discretion, totally reckless as to the taxonomic and nomenclatural chaos your recommendations, trolling and actions may cause, including the recent code-breaking renaming of numerous reptile genera properly named by myself and others not associated with me over the past 15 years, causing untold taxonomic instability and now wasting the ICZN's time by making them have to deal with the mess you have co-created! (yes see Kaiser et. al. 2013 for the full detail of the plot).
Rather than detail all your fraudulent conduct on this list I shall simply post a link to a paper which explains your antics up to 2008.
That paper is here:
http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI2.pdf
Suffice to say, you certainly do have a track record!
Now as you (Mr. Schleip) are guessing what may have happened in terms of UF, I shall take your comments with a grain of salt.
What you and Mr Yanega have failed to do so far is offer any explanation for the alteration of the UF databases by someone which just happened to include all 150 Macrochelys at their facility, although as I just pointed out, Mr Yanega has admitted the database has been changed.
Your comments with regards to the specimens that were used as holotypes in both my 2013 and the recent 2014 Thomas et al paper are also at variance with the reality. You have failed to realise that both myself and the later authors now face the reality of the UF database claiming the holotypes are not at UF ... meaning that if my description were in fact nul and void under the code, the same must apply to the Thomas et al paper.
To claim that my holotype does not exist is a fantasy on your part.
Even taking the recently amended UF database at face value, concedes there is a specimen that forms the basis of the record.
That the animal exists or did exist is not in doubt. Only its current provenace.  The same applies for the types identified by Thomas et al, which are now also listed as occurrence records as well.
Are these critters still on the shelf at UF, in the dumpmaster out the back, still swimming in some Florida watercourse or somewhere else?
Now reading the code itself (and that is the only basis on which it stands or fails) and the relevant sections, I concur with the earlier poster on this list in terms of the form of the 2013 descriptions complying with the rules.
Now if the holotypes are in fact missing in action as currently alleged and are not located, anyone may simply use the description to assign a neotype of the same taxon as identified in the paper.  This has been done many times in the past and no doubt will be done again in the future.
Species don't get renamed every time a holotype goes AWOL!
Can you image the chaos if this were to happen?
All the best
Raymond Hoser
PS - I find it strange how the anti-gang deride my descriptions as "non-taxa" and fictitious imagined species (see Wuster 2001) and then when they steal my work to name them, often a decade after the fact as in the recent renaming of Broghammerus, I am falsely accused of stealing their work (this list)!  And I might add that the various Macrochelys forms have not been a US State secret.  They have been known in in the literature for decades!

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

________________________________
From: webmaster at leiopython.de
To: dyanega at ucr.edu; iczn-list at afriherp.org
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:50:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Dear list,

Actually, I do not understand the clutter at all. Hoser designated two holotypes for snapping turtle subspecies and all the data he had provided in his original description are the catalog number, the locality, and the museum that provided the records. All the information provided by Hoser was given in the online collection database.

In the original Hoser paper we read:
?Holotype: A specimen in the Florida Museum of Natural History (FM) at the University of Florida, specimen number: 155266, from Liberty, Florida, USA. The Florida Museum of Natural History (FM) at the University of Florida, is a government owned facility that allows researchers access to the collection as laid out on their website at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu ?

and

?Holotype: A specimen in the Florida Museum of Natural History (FM) at the University of Florida, specimen number: 165801, from Alachua, Florida, USA. This is a government owned facility that allows researchers access to the collection as laid out on their website at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu?

No further description of the designated type material itself that could provide evidence that Hoser had ever seen at least a detailed picture of these specimens. However, as we all know, databases sometimes contain erroneous data. I am not sure if Hoser had requested further data on the designated species or had asked the curatorial staff of the FLMNH to put labels on these specific specimens marking them as holotypes for newly described taxa.

Recommendations in the Code, although not mandatory, not only provide methods/actions for good practice, but are also given to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions in nomenclatural acts and works. Hoser had deliberately failed to meet the recommendations such as 16C/72D, 16D/72D, 16F/72F.

The curatorial staff cannot know all the more or less obscure self-published journals, so that the author should have contacted them to ensure that the designated specimens have been labeled as types. Presumably at that time, the misunderstanding that the catalog number refers only to an observation/sighting could have been cleared up. Obviously there has been no contact.

As Doug already pointed out clearly, a holotype is a physical specimen (or at least an illustration of a specimen published in the original work or referring to such a published image). Since the catalog numbers chosen refer to a sighting rather than to a physical specimen in the collection, the provisions of the Code are not fulfilled in that Hoser i) did not designate a physical specimen nor ii) did he publish an image or iii) referenced to such an illustration.

The fact that Thomas et al. (2014) had given the catalog numbers in their material examined section, may indicate that they had at least seen the picture(s) taken of the sighting.

To make long short: Tough luck, Hoser! Next time you should ensure that you are referring to a physical specimen or at least publish an illustration or refer to such. Accusing other people of lying isn't really the way science works, although, it may seldom occur?

Cheers,

Wulf

Von: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] Im Auftrag von Doug Yanega
Gesendet: Samstag, 12. April 2014 21:01
An: iczn-list
Betreff: Re: [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

On 4/12/14 10:20 AM, Miguel Angel Alonso Zarazaga wrote:

Well, this means that all these vertebrate species described based on photographs of the 'still alive' wild holotype are not available. Are they?

The photographs in those cases were PUBLISHED with the descriptions. They were controversial, but the consensus was that they could still be treated as available since they included evidence of the existence of the specimen. Hoser published no photographs, no illustrations, and the resource he cited is also not published, thus no evidence.

I do not see it necessary to have the type specimen on hand, provided it is stored in a collection and you can see clear photographs or videos of the parts you need.

Yes, the latter are important provisions, none of which did Hoser satisfy.

Sincerely,

--

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum

Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega

phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)

             http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html

  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness

        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

_______________________________________________ iczn-list mailing list iczn-list at afriherp.org http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list