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 21:23:16 CST 2021 

sorry - I meant a lawyer :)

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:22 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> " 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