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

[Taxacom] ninjabaerus

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 21:22:46 CST 2021 

" koala bear-like animal with carnivorous teeth" - saw one of those - it's
also called a politician.

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 7:45 PM Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Thanks Rich,
>
> Well, I think the intention of the author and the state of scientific
> knowledge at the time of publication are things that should be taken
> into accont, and I agree with you, certainly not today's state of
> scientific knowledge. Nessie existing in the real world or not cannot be
> a decisive criterion.
>
> Thomas pointed out that Nessie is on the fair side of the edge, but only
> because of the line "their existence seems closer to being established".
> I think we agree that this is where the name becomes admissible for
> nomenclature.
>
> The term "hypothetical concept" has to do with a person having something
> in mind. The koala bear did exist, but the author distinguished his new
> species from the koala bear by having carnivorous teeth. So the concept
> was "koala bear-like animal with carnivorous teeth", and this taken
> together was something that only existed in the mind of the author, who
> used this example in the intention to test the limits.
>
> A name for a hypothetical ancestor should also be covered that rule. I
> agree with you that this is probably the intention of Art. 1.3.1. But
> also here we would probably need to look closely on which ones would be
> the decisive points where to look at.
> Someone who publishes a figure of such an ancestor and composes that of
> an image of an existing specimen, to which are added some hypothetical
> structures that the author believes that the ancestor would have had,
> would technically have based that taxon partly on an existing specimen.
> But in the mind of the author that physical specimen was not intended to
> represent the concept.
> In contrast to the koala bear case that author would have had serious
> scientific intentions, but nevertheless both cases can probably be
> compared (= they would be equally far away from the edge, I think they
> land on the far side of the edge) because in both publications the
> evidence in the work would suggest that the concepts are hypothetical.
>
> Cheers
> Francisco
>
> Am 24.01.2021 um 00:42 schrieb Richard Pyle:
> > Thanks, Francisco.  I think the distinction with respect to Art. 1.3.1
> is not so much whether the authors "believed" that the organism existed;
> but rather whether they were basing the name on physical material.  To me,
> a name proposed for the hypothetical ancestor of one or more other
> organisms, absent any physical evidence for the existence of such an
> organism, is what Art. 1.3.1 should be interpreted as clearly unavailable
> in this context.  In other words, I think there has to be some clear
> explicit (or very clearly implicit) indication on the part of the authors
> that the existence of the organism being name is speculated, bot based on
> physical material.  The case of "Nessie" is right on the edge, per my reply
> to Thomas.
> >
> > You raise a good point about the fact that B. ninjabearus did indeed
> include an image of a physical organism, so this might also be one of those
> "edge cases".  Perhaps it is better treated as an available name and
> subjective heterotypic junior synonym of Phascolarctos cinereus?
> >
> > In general, I think the key is to avoid rules in the Code that allow
> subsequent subjective declarations to impact the availability of the name,
> such as "I seriously doubt that the organism you claim to represent the
> type specimen of your new species ever actually existed".
> >
> > But I agree we should put some thought into this for Code5.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> > Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> > Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
> > Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> > 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> > Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> > eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > BishopMuseum.org
> > Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> >> Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 7:43 AM
> >> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
> >>
> >> I appreciate this debate, it may help in the Code-5 preparation.
> >>
> >> Sometimes in zoological nomenclature we work with intentions of authors.
> >>
> >> If the intention of the authors is to name a species that they believe
> really to
> >> exist, we would probably treat such a name differently as in the case
> of an
> >> author who does apparently not believe the animal to exist and publishes
> >> name and description in the intention to test the limits.
> >>
> >> Bicingulatus ninjabearus did exist in the mind of the author, but was it
> >> hypothetical?
> >> I would not doubt that the photographed animals were real specimens, but
> >> the expressed intention demonstrated that he did not really believe the
> >> animal for which he intended the description to exist.
> >>
> >> We separate this from a situation in which a friend sent those photos
> to the
> >> author, reporting that the specimens were deposited in a collection, the
> >> author believed that and published exactly the same description.
> >>
> >> The taxonomic concept did contain an animal then known to exist in
> nature (a
> >> koala bear). If the holotype is a specimen composed of a set of
> components,
> >> Art. 73.1.5 applies. The teeth could be removed by a revising author
> and the
> >> existing koala bear would remain.
> >> Same situation as in Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768: the author
> believed
> >> the nile crocodile did exist, never saw one, trusted a previously
> published
> >> figure which later turned out to be a phantasy crocodile based on two
> real
> >> species deposited in a collection. The description of course did not
> refer to a
> >> nile crocodile, the nile crocodile was not really "known" in the
> scientific sense
> >> to exist in nature, the authors in this epoch just trusted stories.
> >> However I think in this case Laurenti's intention counts, he did
> believe the nile
> >> crocodile existed, and based the descrption on a name-bearing type. So
> the
> >> name refers to one of the two species that later turned out to
> represent the
> >> holotype, given that Art. 73.1.5 was applied, the name is available.
> >>
> >> When the application of Art. 1.3.1 is judged, the content of the
> description
> >> can problably not be considered. My feeling is that the intention of
> the author
> >> must be taken into account.
> >> We could eventually give the Laurenti 1768 example to illustrate how
> Art.
> >> 1.3.1 is to be applied.
> >>
> >> Zoologists need to get this clear because it is relevant for purposes of
> >> homonymy. Nessiteras is preoccupied, also Crocodylus, Bicingulatus
> probably
> >> not.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Francisco
> >>
> >> Am 23.01.2021 um 16:39 schrieb Thomas Pape via Taxacom:
> >>> I am happy to align with Rich.
> >>>
> >>> In the original description of Nessiteras rhombopteryx, Nature
> provided a
> >> short abstract, which shows that the journal [topic editor?] saw the
> paper as
> >> the authors' intent of naming "a species whose existence is still a
> matter of
> >> controversy".
> >>>
> >>> The only evidence in the paper itself is the statement that:
> >>> "their existence [i.e., the animals] seems closer to being
> established".
> >>>
> >>> The zoo-Code applies only to taxa containing at least one "animal then
> >> known to exist in nature, past or present", and the authors of
> Nessiteras
> >> rhombopteryx admittedly appear to have had no doubts about the reality
> of
> >> "the large animal species living in Loch Ness". And if just one of the
> syntypes
> >> represented by the many sightings and photographs is of a fish or a seal
> >> (https://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/SC039151-157.pdf), then this requirement
> >> would probably be fulfilled.
> >>>
> >>> No matter how precise the zoo-Code is worded, we cannot avoid the
> shades
> >> of probability nor can we avoid the penumbra of not knowing exactly
> what is
> >> or was on any author's mind.
> >>>
> >>> /Thomas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>> Sent: 23. januar 2021 09:31
> >>> To: 'Taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >>> Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> >>> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to do something I very (very) rarely do: disagree with
> Thomas:
> >>>
> >>>> This is why scientific names proposed for 'Nessie', 'Bigfoot', and
> >>>> other fictional creatures are not available.
> >>>
> >>> As far as I can discern, the scientific names for both "Nessie"
> (Nessiteras
> >> rhombopteryx Scott & Rines 1975) and  "Bigfoot" (Homo sapiens cognatus
> >> Ketchum 2013) are available under the Code.  I am well aware of
> arguments
> >> (e.g., Notton et al. 2011) that the former is unavailable under Art.
> 1.3.1; but I
> >> think a careful reading of both Art. 1.3 and the original description
> >> (https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >> nature.com%2Farticles%2F258466a0.pdf&amp;data%7C01%7Ctpape%40s
> >> nm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af
> >> 898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> >> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> >> Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=YF5WYCM4WUNnxFIDKVHxjYoob2mlU12euI3
> >> BYE9mgHo%3D&amp;reserved=0) make it clear that Art. 1.3.1 does not
> apply.
> >> Note that Art. 1.3.1, in full (including the text of Art. 1.3), reads:
> "[Excluded
> >> from the provisions of the Code are names *proposed*] for hypothetical
> >> concepts;"  I emphasized the verb "proposed" because it references the
> >> context in which a name is established.  There is no indication that
> Scott and
> >> Rines *proposed* a name for a hypothetical concept -- there is every
> >> indication within the original publication that they proposed the name
> for
> >> what they asserted to be a very real organism (complete with photos
> >> purported to depict the type specimen).  It is often pointed out that
> the name
> >> itself is an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S".  But this no
> more
> >> represents evidence that the authors intentionally proposed an name for
> a
> >> hypothetical concept than the fact that the name is also an anagram for
> "Yes,
> >> both pix are monsters – R" represents evidence that they believed it to
> be a
> >> genuine organism. Nothing in the original description suggests that it
> was
> >> proposed for a hypothetical concept.
> >>>
> >>> It is likewise clear from the original description of H. s. cognatus
> >>> that the authors very-much considered the taxon to be real (not
> >>> hypothetical):
> >>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fheav
> >>> y.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fnovel-north-american-
> >> homini
> >>> ns-final-pdf-
> >> download.pdf&amp;data%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4
> >>>
> >> ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C
> >> 0%7C0
> >>>
> >> %7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
> >> wMDAiLCJQ
> >>>
> >> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=M3jY%
> >> 2BQLg
> >>> SPmzGAlQaAskYSo8J0r5pzelMS6x76lFqZg%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> The point is, I think the verb "proposed" in the context of Art. 1.3
> (and, by
> >> extension, Art. 1.3.1) clearly implies that the description itself must
> assert that
> >> the name is intended for a taxon that is not based on actual specimens
> (or,
> >> what are believed to be actual specimens), but rather a hypothetical
> concept
> >> (e.g. the hypothetical common ancestor of two extant taxa, absent any
> fossil
> >> evidence for such). If it were interpreted otherwise, then *any* name
> for
> >> which an extant type is not available could be argued to be
> "hypothetical"
> >> after the publication of the description, and declared unavailable
> (anagrams
> >> or not).
> >>>
> >>> I haven't read the original description for Bicingulatus ninjabearus,
> but I
> >> gather it is evident from the paper itself that the taxon is
> hypothetical (e.g.,
> >> "Therefore, this paper seeks to test the limits on the application of
> >> phototypes." -- evidently a misguided attempt to malign the need for the
> >> Code to accommodate non-extant type specimens). Thus, in this case, I
> think
> >> a strong case could be made that Art. 1.3.1 does apply to this name, if
> it was
> >> indeed proposed by the authors to apply to a hypothetical concept.
> >>>
> >>> As for this:
> >>>> the circumscription of a species can be seen as a scientific
> >>>> hypothesis
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree with Thomas that it *can* be seen this way.  And in very
> rare
> >> cases it may actually be framed this way.  But in the vast, vast
> majority of
> >> cases, new species are proposed as *defined* entities, not
> *hypothesized*
> >> entities.  Hypotheses are falsifiable; definitions are not.
> >>>
> >>> [Drops mic, sneaks out back door...]
> >>>
> >>> Aloha,
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> >>> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE Bernice Pauahi
> >>> Bishop Museum
> >>> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> >>> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> >>> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >>> BishopMuseum.org
> >>> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> >> the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture,
> and
> >> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> >>>> Thomas Pape via Taxacom
> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:34 PM
> >>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
> >>>>
> >>>> Igor:
> >>>> You are correct that science can be seen as a hypothetico-deductive
> >>>> method and the circumscription of a species can be seen as a
> scientific
> >> hypothesis.
> >>>> However, the zoo-Code has this definition in the Glossary:
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------
> >>>> concept, hypothetical, n.
> >>>> A taxonomic concept that when published contained no animal then
> >>>> known to exist in nature, past or present, but only in the mind of
> >>>> the author whether a prediction or not.
> >>>> ----------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why scientific names proposed for 'Nessie', 'Bigfoot', and
> >>>> other fictional creatures are not available.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> >> igor
> >>>> pavlinov via Taxacom
> >>>> Sent: 22. januar 2021 21:02
> >>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>>> Subject: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to all who responded so swiftly. I haven’t known anything
> >>>> about ninjabaerus.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, the paper in question is of a certain importance to me
> >>>> because it provides a rare example of an explicit use of the term
> >>>> «phototype» (not in the sense of lichenologists). So I’ll probably
> >>>> have to cite it, all the same, as well as an another example of «joke
> >>>> nomenclature» (along with famous Rhinogradentia).
> >>>>
> >>>> As to the reference to the Art. 1.3.1, the latter is curious by
> >>>> itself. The matter is that any schientific knowledge is hypothetical,
> >>>> so description of a new taxon is always a kind of taxonomic
> >>>> hypothesis to be tested by new data. So, from a «philosopical»
> >>>> (Popperian) perspective, the main thesis of this Article is
> incosistent and
> >> needs reformulation in more correct terms.
> >>>>
> >>>> My bests,
> >>>>
> >>>> Igor
> >>>> - - -
> >>>> Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
> >>>> Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University ul. Bol'shaya
> >>>> Nikitskaya 6
> >>>> 125009 Moscow
> >>>> Russia
> >>>>
> >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzmmu.
> >>>>
> >> msu.ru%2Fpersonal%2Fpavlinov%2Fpavlinov1.htm&amp;data%7C01%7Ct
> >>>>
> >> pape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91c
> >>>>
> >> da14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown
> >>>>
> >> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW
> >>>>
> >> wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=eUF8oLktYIIbS3l9XwmlFo6TIiLOng
> >>>> %2BOBQIr8aVQnqE%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>>
> >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzmmu.
> >>>>
> >> msu.ru%2Fpersonal%2Fpavlinov%2Fpavlinov_eng1.htm&amp;data%7C01
> >>>>
> >> %7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927
> >>>>
> >> f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnkn
> >>>>
> >> own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
> >>>>
> >> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=Sf0uQWBpjnnVkjz7Qn1XImfS
> >>>> OIo4WCtTZvwfSiWuj8I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>>
> >>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail
> >>>> m
> >>>> a
> >>>> n.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-
> >>>>
> >> bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&amp;data%7C01%7Ctpape%40sn
> >>>>
> >> m.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91cda14696af8
> >>>>
> >> 98c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> >>>>
> >> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> >>>>
> >> Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=1x96fA62Mv%2BEddhRBUicHccWZQZZ40nyU
> >>>> XX%2Ba4inNnw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> >>>> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can
> >>>> be searched at:
> >>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxa
> >>>> c o
> >> m.markmail.org%2F&amp;data%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e
> >>>>
> >> 3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0
> >>>>
> >> %7C0%7C637469425250458306%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> >>>>
> >> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&a
> >>>>
> >> mp;sdata=q9k3fEO3%2F2mqNC5ZeQ7ahXEQ%2BB3avpUYjdrN1Tf8q2Q%3D&a
> >>>> mp;reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-
> >> 2020.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>>
> >>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail
> >>>> m
> >>>> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-
> >> bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&amp;data%7C
> >>>> 0
> >>>>
> >> 1%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca392
> >> 7f91cd
> >>>> a
> >>>>
> >> 14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7
> >> CTWFpbG
> >>>> Z
> >>>>
> >> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M
> >> n0%
> >>>> 3
> >>>>
> >> D%7C1000&amp;sdata=zbBvqr3JztzzHV4RC6CsWqaCpOOa8nFfORzKlF%2BjE4
> >> Q%3D&a
> >>>> m
> >>>> p;reserved=0 You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> >>>> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can
> >>>> be searched at:
> >>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxa
> >>>> c
> >>>>
> >> om.markmail.org%2F&amp;data%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4
> >> ccb51e
> >>>> 3
> >>>>
> >> 4bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%
> >> 7C637
> >>>> 4
> >>>>
> >> 69875272099362%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
> >> CJQIjoiV2
> >>>> l
> >>>>
> >> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=Szf7BByWoRs
> >> nYrET
> >>>> G
> >>>> 4vE0o%2F8dGEU7FV40%2FKJ7uhL17A%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-
> >> 2020.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>
> >>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to
> >>> 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>>
> >>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For
> >> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> >> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> >> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> >
> > .
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list