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

[Stephen Thorpe]

None of this is relevant! Observational records or not, there is nothing in the Code which clearly invalidates Hoser's holotype designations! People are reading into the Code what suits their agenda, and not what is actually written!
?
Specifically, the Code states (basically) that a holotype specimen must be designated. That means that a particular specimen must be specified, but it doesn't say in what ways it may be specified. Therefore, specifying a specimen by way of an observational record of that specimen is OK. The Code makes it clear that an author doesn't actually have to have seen or examined?the holotype itself.
?
There is NO problem, Houston!
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>; iczn-list <iczn-list at afriherp.org>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "rwrossco at gmail.com" <rwrossco at gmail.com>; "envirodata at hotmail.com" <envirodata at hotmail.com>; "drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com" <drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 13 April 2014 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code


On 4/12/14 4:15 PM, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman wrote:
> Dear All (Doug in particular),
> evidence can be made and destroyed.
> This is clearly what has happened in this case in order to steal my 
> earlier work and rename the relevant turtles.
This is by no means clear - in fact, it appears to be entirely based 
upon your misconception that the FM database makes any distinctions 
between specimens physically held in their collection, and purely 
observational records. As your screenshot demonstrates, their online 
database makes no such distinction, so a browser CANNOT TELL whether a 
given record is based on a physical specimen or not. To find that out, 
one must contact the curator and ASK. As a database designer myself, I 
find their data interface to be poor, but that isn't a crime.
> To assert (Doug) that I had "no evidence" is fantasy on your part.
> I attach some for that I downloaded a few short hours ago from FLNHM, 
> listing a Hoser 2013 holotype.
It does not list a Hoser holotype; record 165801 is only an 
observational record, not a specimen record, so it's not a holotype of 
anything, and - for all you or I know - ALL of the records on that page 
in the screenshot are observational only - or maybe some are and some 
aren't. There is *no way to tell without asking*. When we asked the 
curators whether there were physical specimens associated with records 
155266 and 165801, we were informed that no such specimens had ever 
existed in their collection. You did not ask, so you were not privy to 
this fact when you published. That was careless, though I have little 
doubt it was deliberate; after all, had you asked, you would have 
alerted people to the fact that you were going to publish names for the 
taxa that they had recently published on, but had not yet named 
themselves. Or were you not intending to point that out to all the 
people reading this thread? Do you see molecular phylogenetics research 
in herpetology as existing solely to give you an excuse to publish new 
names without having to do any research yourself?
> Now Doug, you may not like the evidence, but to claim it doesn't exist 
> is fantasy on your part and I so far have only given out what the 
> current (testable by others with resources on hand) paper/digital 
> trail shows ... which I have done so that people can verify the fraud 
> on their own and without need to "take your word for it".
Evidence? There is no evidence for me to either like or dislike. I have 
no reason to believe that I was being lied to when I was told that 
records 155266 and 165801 never had associated specimens in the FM 
collection. I am more inclined to believe the people who discovered the 
new taxa in question, the person who maintains the collection and 
database in question, and the person whose observations are recorded in 
that database, than I am to believe your claim that there must have been 
specimens and they have secretly destroyed them in order to steal "your" 
names. For someone who has coined more than 600 names in the last five 
years, many of them - like these - discovered by other people, you are 
making an amazingly loud noise over these two that "got away".
> Now also Doug, you have failed to bother to answer the obvious anomaly 
> of the types as listed in Zootaxa (Thomas et al.) now being listed on 
> herpnet as "occurrence record" only (as are mine) (and I have attached 
> a list from Thomas et al for you), and all the rest of the alleged UF 
> "specimens examined" and the associated fact that the entire holdings 
> of UF, have been changed from "preserved specimen" to "occurrence 
> record", meaning that the new record shows the place as not having a 
> single specimen of Macrochelys in their holdings, which is a dramatic 
> drop from the earlier 150!
As of this moment (I just checked), the FM database shows 152 
Macrochelys records, and does not indicate which, if any, are based on 
physical specimens. There is, in fact, one record that indicates 28 
specimens. I'm willing to bet that there are not 28 physical specimens 
in the FM collection associated with that record. But I can't tell, and 
*neither can you*. So I wonder just where you are getting this idea that 
something has been altered. As for the "specimens examined" list, which 
of those specimens are physical versus observational has no bearing on 
the availability of the names EXCEPT the two they designated as the 
holotypes; and even that would not matter if they included a photograph 
or illustration of those specimens.
> This unavoidable fact shows clearly the fraud that has been committed 
> with respect to the FLNHM database.
What fact? What fraud? Their database does not say whether a record is 
an observation or not - you are implying that their records have been 
changed, and I see no sign that they have been, aside from ONE thing: a 
few of the records now have a new species epithet, using the new names 
from the Thomas et al. ZooTaxa paper. Everything else looks like it did 
all along, as far as I can see. If Herpnet is showing something 
different, maybe there is something wrong with Herpnet - and even if so, 
that certainly isn't relevant to the issue at hand.
> I think your blind desire to attack my position (Doug) makes your own 
> look questionable.
The person attacking here is you. You are attacking the authors of 
another paper, you are attacking me, you are attacking the Code. You are 
not the victim. You made an egregious and careless error in the process 
of trying to lay claim to taxa that other people discovered, and now you 
are trying to cover it up by claiming that instead of it being an error, 
you are the target of a conspiracy. Again, I am not attacking you, I am 
defending those other authors, defending myself, and defending the Code, 
which you are deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting.
> Finally Doug, I think you should read the code you are a commissioner 
> for and familiarize yourself with its contents. The code DOES NOT 
> mandate the publication of photos or illustrations.? They are at best 
> recommendations only and of course the adoption of them is at the 
> behest of the author and within the (in our case in particular) heavy 
> constraints we face.
This is EXACTLY what I mean by deliberately misinterpreting and 
misrepresenting the Code. No, the Code does not mandate the publication 
of photos or illustrations WHEN THERE IS A PHYSICAL TYPE SPECIMEN 
EXPLICITLY DESIGNATED. By omitting that latter clause, you misrepresent 
the Code. In your case, there was no such specimen. The Code DOES 
require that a holotype specimen exist, and, when designating that 
holotype, the ONLY thing that can *ever* be used in lieu of the physical 
specimen itself *for purposes of explicit designation* is an 
illustration or photograph OF THAT EXACT SPECIMEN. The authors who 
described vertebrates whose holotypes were released back into the wild 
included photographs of the holotype itself in order to make their names 
Code-compliant (and even that is pretty marginal). *You did not*. If the 
authors of those bird names had only said "We saw a bird, gave it a 
number, and released it, but here is its description" then THOSE names 
would have been unavailable, just like yours. They included photographs, 
however, so their names ARE considered available. Yours are not. This is 
really quite simple.
> But talking code recommendations, it is clear that Thomas et al, have 
> stepped outside the ethics section, which I note you have yet to make 
> comment.
No, they have not - that is specifically why they asked for 
nomenclatural advice - to make sure your names were unavailable before 
they published theirs. What is especially offensive about this 
accusation is that if anyone here is guilty of unethical behavior, it's 
you, for trying to "claim-jump" the authorship for these new taxa before 
the people who discovered them (as part of their phylogenetic research) 
were able to compose and publish a formal description. You almost got 
away with it, except you were careless about it. That is shameful, and 
if you don't believe you owe those people an apology, then clearly you 
have no shame. No one here is, or should be, weeping for you.

And just so you don't misunderstand this, I am not singling you, 
personally, out - you are not that important in and of yourself - but 
what you are is an example; an example of someone who deliberately 
twists and abuses the Code to suit his own purposes, just one of many 
who engage in similar practices. If any of the others were posting here, 
and wasting the community's valuable time and energy, then I would be 
saying the exact same things to them, too. I'm a Commissioner, and I 
consider it my duty to stand up for the Code and the community the Code 
is intended to serve, to the best of my ability. I'm also a taxonomist, 
and a scientist, and in both respects am also offended by anyone who 
seeks to make a mockery of the proper conduct of science by 
circumventing peer review when doing taxonomy. Just because 
self-publication doesn't violate the Code doesn't mean I or anyone else 
here should condone it, or approve of those who practice it.

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

_______________________________________________
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.