Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

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

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Apr 13 16:47:15 CDT 2014 

I don't know the details of that case (Loch Ness Monster), but if a holotype was designated in such a way that it specifies one and only one specimen (of something) by way of an observation, then yes. The name will refer to whatever the holotype is. Not so if it was a null observation, or an observation of more than one specimen. Even if available, Nessiteras rhombopteryxis is very unlikely to be valid!
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Barry OConnor <bmoc at umich.edu>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; 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: Monday, 14 April 2014 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code



Stephen, does this mean?Nessiteras rhombopteryxis 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

More information about the Taxacom mailing list