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

Sun Apr 13 16:26:44 CDT 2014

Stephen, does this mean *Nessiteras rhombopteryx** is available? - Barry*

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
-So many mites, so little time!

Barry M. OConnor
Professor  & Curator
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Museum of Zoology

University of Michigan                  phone: 734-763-4354
1109 Geddes Ave.                          fax: 734-763-4080
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079          e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu