[Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was Provisions to the Code)

Mon Apr 28 15:20:09 CDT 2014

Hi, Alex,

Sorry for the delayed response.  I confirmed with GenBank that the revision history of records are kept and available for browsing and comparing.  I might release a BARCODE record with a preliminary species ID, recording my name as identifier and the date of the identification and the fact that I based the ID on examination of an adult relative to a wildlife guide. At a later date I could submit a revision with a higher level of confidence made by someone else based on examination of the literature or reference collections.  The evolution of the record from low to higher confidence taxonomic data would be clearly documented.  I think that what you have described is more or less exactly what we hope to implement.

As to the second part of your message, we?re not trying to regulate what is or is not an adequate basis for a reliable species ID.  We only want to record the metadata describing what the identifier had access to in terms of the specimen being identified and comparative reference pictures or specimens.  As you rightly say, there are a large and varied number of informative characters that are taxon-specific.  We don?t propose to record data at that level.

Best regards,

David

From: Alex Borisenko [mailto:aborisen at uoguelph.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Schindel, David
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was Provisions to the Code)

Hi David,

I am afraid that the second weakness cannot be addressed by adding mandatory metadata elements, because what we are looking at here is, in essence, an ontology. E.g., the same specimen can be identified in the field by the ranger, then in the lab by a forensic expert and then the photo shown to a taxonomist; each of them may or may not use one or many references for making the taxonomic assignment. Collapsing this ontology into the same flatfile with the specimen record is arguably more difficult than creating a separate audit trail pathway to track this history of taxonomic revisions linking back to the reference sequence (as a relational table).
As you correctly note, different morphological character sets will be vital for identifying different taxa. As a mammalogist, I can argue that skulls are the most taxonomically informative part of an 'average' mammal, cheek dentition being the next best thing. However, this may not work if you want to retain info about geographical variants and will probably not work in most other vertebrate groups (let alone life forms that do not have a skull). You may have to come up with a large matrix of taxonomically informative character sets that will work for particular taxa (e.g., external habitus photo, lateral head closeup, primary feather, cheek tooth, etc.). Once you have it, you can require that each sample contains, say, two of these character sets documented. I am not sure how you can keep the system simple and yet informative enough for your referencing purposes.

Best wishes
Alex

________________________________
From: "David Schindel" <schindeld at si.edu<mailto:schindeld at si.edu>>
To: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 3:55:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was Provisions to the Code)

This discussion immediately veered off-topic so I'll add some further information to try to get it back on track.

A common complaint about online biodiversity databases is the lack of links to voucher specimens that can be re-examined to corroborate or refute the species name on the database records and the lack of quality control over species identification.

The BARCODE data standard addresses the first concern directly by requiring a voucher ID in a standard format that will lead anyone with a question back to the repository, collection and catalog number associated with the voucher.  CBOL constructed the Global Registry of Biological Repositories (www.grbio.com<http://www.grbio.com>, a merger with Index Herbariorium and Biodiversity Collections Index), as an authoritative look-up table for InstitutionCodes and CollectionCodes.

The second weakness is more difficult to address so the Barcode of Wildlife is extending the BARCODE data standard by adding several metadata fields associated with the reliability of the species identification.  The include fields such as:

   - Name of the identifier
   - Date of the identification
   - Type status of the voucher specimen (if any)
   - Basis of identification (was the voucher specimen a complete adult, a pre-adult, a part, a tissue sample only, digital image only?)
   - To what was the voucher compared?  Reference collections? Literature figures? Field guides? Morphological key?

The question I posed is this.  Assuming it is out of the question to have a complete study skin or skeleton or liquid-preserved voucher, what proxies could be considered as adequate replacements for a traditional voucher?  Yes, it will vary by taxonomic group but assuming that we cannot kill and preserve a specimen, what's the minimum information and material we should require if we want to be able to corroborate the species ID independently from the barcode sequence?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Jose Fernandez Triana
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was Provisions to the Code)

It is good to know that at the CNC the curators/collection managers are
directly in control and oversee the students. To be sure, damage to
specimens can happen with anyone. If that were all that was at risk with
carefully supervised students I would not be so concerned, but in the case
cited damage was more than a rare exception and specimens were mixed up in
ways that were damaging to their research value.

Barcoding is itself an issue of contention. Whether it is more important
than ?occasional? specimens being lost, broken, misplaced (by students)
remains to be seen.

John Grehan

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jose Fernandez Triana <jftriana at uoguelph.ca
<mailto:jftriana at uoguelph.ca%0b>> wrote:

> Being based in one the largest entomological collections of the world
> (Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ottawa) I second and support
> Alex' comments 100%. I cannot think of any collection manager (or curator,
> or researcher) that would work as careless as described in the original
> message... For the past 4-5 years we have had many summer students doing
> tissue sampling for DNA (= pulling put a leg in most insect cases), and the
> overall experience is very positive. Yes, we have found the occasional
> person that is not careful/skillful/interested enough, but it is the rare
> exception, not the rule. And then, name one human enterprise where that
> does not happen... It all comes down to overseeing the work being done by
> the "barcoders team".
>
> In my opinion, the benefits of having collections sampled for DNA (be it
> the barcoding region or more than that) are much more important than the
> occasional specimen lost, broken, misplaced... and here in the CNC we have
> several dozens of thousands of specimens already barcoded, in all major
> orders of Insecta, so we have gone down that road for a long time.
>
> Cheers,
> Jose
>
> --
> Jos? L. Fern?ndez-Triana, PhD.
> Research Associate, Canadian National Collection of Insects,
> and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario
> 960 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6
> Phone: 613-759-1034 . Email: jftriana at uoguelph.ca<mailto:jftriana at uoguelph.ca>,
> Jose.Fernandez at agr.gc.ca<mailto:Jose.Fernandez at agr.gc.ca>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.canacoll.org/Hym/Staff/Triana/Triana.htm&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=ce174a125c089965e0e6e28ac429056ae0147469c0b21f07e40c603d925bc2a8
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://cncbraconidae.blogspot.ca/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2f065439224c0f81247cde41a5ce307d579919e60e4d1e70196092fd4faecff3
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Borisenko" <aborisen at uoguelph.ca<mailto:aborisen at uoguelph.ca>>
> To: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:28:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was
> Provisions to the Code)
>
> IF the following description is correct, then lack of proper curatorial
> oversight of the collection in question is an even bigger problem. What
> kind of a collections manager would let in a bunch of students do
> free-for-all destructive sampling in their collection without supervision?
> Also, what is the issue with barcoding
> unidentified/misidentified/tentatively identified specimens or those from
> undescribed species? Barcoding is a tool designed to help with taxonomic
> validation, so it is to be expected that the construction of reference
> libraries is an iterative process that often begins with a mess. Finally,
> please name one large collection that is not under-resourced...
> AB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>>
> To: "Alex Borisenko" <aborisen at uoguelph.ca<mailto:aborisen at uoguelph.ca>>
> Cc: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia at gmail.com<mailto:pleuronaia at gmail.com>>, "taxacom" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:05:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was
> Provisions to the Code)
>
>
>
> If the following description is correct then the lack of quality control
> would seem to be a really major problem:
>
> ?A team from [country omitted] moved in and badly damaged the collection
> in a massive knock legs off everything project. They confused species put
> material back in the wrong place and damaged hundreds of specimens. They
> did not talk to us at all. They bar-coded undescribed species or unplaced
> specimens or species without a clue as to why they were where they were in
> the collection. Students did the work so they massively miss interpreted
> the collection and of course took absolutely no account of the varying
> degrees of reliability of identifications existing in any large
> under-resourced collection.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alex Borisenko < aborisen at uoguelph.ca<mailto:aborisen at uoguelph.ca> >
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> Your critical comment below relates to two separate issues:
> 1. The lack of convenient feedback tools for reporting identification
> errors in online data portals for DNA barcoding information;
> 2. The poor quality of data submitted to such portals.
>
> With regards to #2, I can only say that the data are as good as we
> (collectively) make them. E.g., many providers of specimen provenance
> information do not indicate (and often do not know) the name of the
> identifier at the time of submission.
>
> With regards to #1, I must note that such tools are available. For
> example, the Barcode of Life Data System has an attribution section for
> each specimen record that denotes the name of the identifier (when
> available) and the name of the project manager who could be asked to
> address taxonomic problems within a particular dataset. E.g., see public
> BOLD record below (bottom right corner):
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://v3.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_RecordView?processid%3DABSMS268-06&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=e7d05779cc059be4832a74da8d59d64494567f94c674460e0e38d661f9789eee
>
> Because of privacy/spam concerns, it is not possible to email the
> identifier or project manager directly from a public specimen record - this
> functionality is only open to registered BOLD users who are logged in.
> However, if users wish to provide instant feedback, they have the option
> to annotate the data record by clicking the Add Tags&Comments button just
> above the taxonomy - this will flag the record for future users.
> They can also add tags on the corresponding BIN page which would annotate
> all specimens putatively referred to a given species:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://v3.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_BarcodeCluster?clusteruri%3DBOLD:ACF2193&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=b087e8b7809a9263358c67f665ccec6610892d586ff96e5163f6b77ae2577860
>
> I am not sure if I fully understand your remarks about 'proper' or
> 'correct' identifiers. If you imply that some barcode data records are
> contributed by people without adequate taxonomic expertise or
> accreditation, I personally think that it is a strength of such large-scale
> data projects.
> In most other real world situations, the 'proper' and 'correct'
> identifiers are those who get acknowledged in specialized taxonomic
> revisions, whereas many of the the 'incorrect' and 'improper' ones write
> volumes of ecological assessment and biodiversity survey reports whose
> baseline data never get digitally annotated, let alone cross-referenced
> against museum collections or taxonomy databases. Ironically, such reports
> probably have more weight in environmental decision-making. I think that
> having information from different sources in one digital system where
> taxonomic inconsistencies become glaringly visible is a step in the right
> direction. Thank you for your efforts in trying to clean up the resulting
> taxonomic issues.
>
> Best wishes
> Alex
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "David Campbell" < pleuronaia at gmail.com<mailto:pleuronaia at gmail.com> >
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:29:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Minimum standards for e-voucher documentation (was
> Provisions to the Code)
>
>
>
> Quality information is critical, but it's difficult to formulate a standard
> when different taxa vary greatly in their key features. For many animals,
> dissection showing reproductive features is critical, and often challenging
> *(e.g*., microscopic). Others have key differences in a specific part.
> Barcodes have great potential for facilitating identification, but only if
> the validity of the barcode is tested for the group in question and
> specimens are carefully identified.
> As with any online compilation, content must be accompanied by appropriate
> curation. There needs to be a quick way to communicate information (such
> as corrected identification) to a responsible party. In the case of
> barcoding, where often large numbers of specimens are quickly processed,
> it's particularly important to have a clearly designated identifier for a
> particular specimen. It's frustrating to notice an error in a barcoding
> project, search through several pages to finally find some contact
> information, and then be told that the submitted identifier (the one used
> in GenBank) was not the proper identifier to enable them to tell which
> specimen had the problem. At least they could have given some sort of clue
> as to what the correct identifier would have been ("the one where you've
> got a photo of something from a different order" wouldn't do, either).
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Schindel, David < schindeld at si.edu<mailto:schindeld at si.edu> >
> wrote:
>
> > The Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) is leading the Barcode of
> > Wildlife Project on endangered species. We will be grappling with the
> > issue of what minimum documentation should be required for occurrence
> > records and BARCODE records in GenBank when there is no traditional
> voucher
> > specimen (e.g., dead animal bones and skin or a herbarium sheet). This
> has
> > special significance in the project which is constructing a reference
> > library of barcode records in GenBank that will be used to identify the
> > species of organisms involved in the investigation and prosecution of
> > wildlife crime. We're all familiar with circumstances in which a
> > traditional voucher specimen is either impractical (e.g., endangered
> whales
> > or other large species) or illegal (endangered/protected species). There
> > was a small literature on 'e-vouchers' a few years ago but as far as I
> > know, it never evolved to the level of a proposed standard for
> > documentation.
> >
> > This is related to the ongoing thread about holotypes but I stress that
> we
> > are not trying to erect new species without a traditional type specimen.
> > Rather, we want to provide a credible way for someone to verify the
> > species identification of a specimen with a GenBank record when there is
> no
> > traditional voucher. Tissue samples, photographs, geolocation,
> > measurements and environmental context data are the obvious elements in
> > such a standard. Do any of you know of an effort to formalize these
> > minimum information standards?
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > David Schindel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> [mailto:
> > taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> ] On Behalf Of laurent raty
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:23 AM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
> >
> > - "Physical specimen" is not a term regulated by the ICZN. In fact, the
> > word "physical" appears exactly zero times in the entire text of the
> > Code; and given the definition of "specimen" there, an "un-physical
> > specimen" (Stephen used the word "ghost" recently) seems to be an
> > impossibility. Specimens are always physical, or they would be no
> > specimens.
> >
> > - What comes closest in the ICZN to what some seem to call "physical
> > specimen" is "extant specimen" ("sp?cimens qui existent toujours" in the
> > French text).
> >
> > - For names published after 1999, Art.16.4.2 gives explicit additional
> > requirements for availability in the special case where the holotype or
> > syntypes are extant specimens. As this is clearly treated as a special
> > case, it is obvious that having extant specimens as types cannot be
> > understood as a general requirement for all species-group names
> > published after 1999.
> >
> > - Again, it is a complete misreading to pretend that:
> > "73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a
> > holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated;
> > the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not
> > of itself invalidate the designation."
> > ...introduces an exception to a general "rule" that would say that a
> > holotype must be an extant specimen. Should such a "rule" exist, this
> > article would actually not allow any exception to it: the designation of
> > the illustrated specimen would be allowed only if the specimen is
> > extant; the designation of the illustration would have to be treated as
> > the designation of the specimen; thus, should the specimen not be
> > extant, the designation of the illustration would not be allowed.
> >
> > The truth is that there is NO such rule in the Code.
> >
> > My two cents,
> > Laurent -
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/16/2014 09:48 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > > From: "Weakley, Alan" < weakley at bio.unc.edu<mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu> >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:38 AM
> > >
> > >> Hi all: here is the current code for algae, fungi, and plants
> > >> (
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page%3Dtitle&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&s=e1234d69e54d95922d340300d45e3d1719a2e98c46bb13d43b448028992f9e95
> > )
> > >
> > >> Bottom line: after 2007, physical specimen only (exceptions as noted
> > >> below).
> > >
> > > ***
> > > This is not particularly accurate. Illustrations may be
> > > types, and the date of 1 January 2007 does not change
> > > that; such illustrations as were types before that date will
> > > continue to be so after that date. And new designations
> > > of illustrations as types may still be made after that date.
> > >
> > > What has changed with 1 January is that names of new
> > > species or new infraspecific taxa may not have an
> > > illustration as a type (exceptions excepted).
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&s=d9f54cf48371af1f22f8c4749482432199c25b34415db3e7d8dba08f199e5f01
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&s=5a6347632a4f57b5937d5523780efebac85be4516d4c8a98ff9ca27b191e26b2
> > >
> > > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&s=d9f54cf48371af1f22f8c4749482432199c25b34415db3e7d8dba08f199e5f01
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=BWWddgspb8VyrOJmwD7URzKSH%2BOlLYhcK7fpJhBFDHo%3D%0A&s=5a6347632a4f57b5937d5523780efebac85be4516d4c8a98ff9ca27b191e26b2
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=0874c3d136e07e8f37024b8de20200ce2491058b729b980a45f0b4c1da25840a
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2665ae5c423c8742a00b31792b45e9a67c3cbe53e9b5d790be2ff8d8f6e1a081
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> Assistant Professor, Geology
> Department of Natural Sciences
> Box 7270
> Gardner-Webb University
> Boiling Springs NC 28017
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=0874c3d136e07e8f37024b8de20200ce2491058b729b980a45f0b4c1da25840a
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2665ae5c423c8742a00b31792b45e9a67c3cbe53e9b5d790be2ff8d8f6e1a081
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=0874c3d136e07e8f37024b8de20200ce2491058b729b980a45f0b4c1da25840a
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2665ae5c423c8742a00b31792b45e9a67c3cbe53e9b5d790be2ff8d8f6e1a081
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=0874c3d136e07e8f37024b8de20200ce2491058b729b980a45f0b4c1da25840a
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2665ae5c423c8742a00b31792b45e9a67c3cbe53e9b5d790be2ff8d8f6e1a081
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=0874c3d136e07e8f37024b8de20200ce2491058b729b980a45f0b4c1da25840a
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://taxacom.markmail.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=94xk%2BkvyzF5zfdS9tDhVEg%3D%3D%0A&m=emdNFiyYx2vUuAFRygbIiEnhemalEGOClraKzfGCZ%2Fc%3D%0A&s=2665ae5c423c8742a00b31792b45e9a67c3cbe53e9b5d790be2ff8d8f6e1a081

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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.