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

[Taxacom] ninjabaerus

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Jan 24 15:31:46 CST 2021 

OK, thanks Francisco.  I think we agree.  My main point is that the question of treating a taxon for a proposed new name as "hypothetical" (or not) -- i.e., whether or not Art. 1.3.1 applies -- should be based on information contained within the original publication; not based on subsequent information external to the original publication.

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: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 2:45 PM
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
> 
> 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%2Fhe
> >>> av
> >>> 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%2Fma
> >>>> il
> >>>> 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%2Fta
> >>>> xa
> >>>> 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%2Fma
> >>>> il
> >>>> 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%2Fta
> >>>> xa
> >>>> 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.
> >
> > .
> >

More information about the Taxacom mailing list