[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 186, Issue 6
Ziv Lieberman
zlieberman at ucdavis.edu
Fri Oct 15 16:31:47 CDT 2021
2021
Hi Stephen,
Re: "Bos(s) domesticus," not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but in
my opinion this joke is, at best, weirdly out of place, and more
realistically casual misogyny which is not a good look. Especially given
the underrepresentation of women in taxonomy and the ICZN commission
specifically, let's be a little more cautious about the tone we set, and a
bit more cognizant that what is light-hearted to some might feel pretty
crappy and exclusionary to others, who are too used to this kind of thing
being representative of a larger cultural issue (not implying that's
necessarily the case here, but it certainly can look and feel that way).
Don't need any particular reply, thanks for thinking about it!
Cheers
-Z
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. "Bos domesticus" issue (Douglas Yanega)
> 2. Re: "Bos domesticus" issue (Stephen Thorpe)
> 3. Re: "Bos domesticus" issue (Michael A. Ivie)
> 4. Re: "Bos domesticus" issue (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
> 5. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (John Grehan)
> 6. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (John Grehan)
> 7. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (Scott Thomson)
> 8. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (Scott Thomson)
> 9. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes (Scott Thomson)
> (Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz)
> 10. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes (Scott Thomson)
> (Scott Thomson)
> 11. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (John Grehan)
> 12. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes (Scott Thomson)
> (Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz)
> 13. Re: Describing taxa for conservation purposes - Scott
> Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> self-gratification. (Douglas Yanega)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:50:04 -0700
> From: Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue
> Message-ID: <38e75e55-3b6e-c50c-b969-c1e26b1c31a2 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over the
> taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether it
> should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My initial
> thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct? Surely
> that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the banteng."
>
> In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's definitive
> work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic
> Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several authorities
> that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet domesticus and
> it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or moved there later.
> The oldest such citation I can find listed is Erxleben, 1777 (there is
> also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The point is this: Bos
> domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng) surely cannot be a
> valid name under the ICZN because the name would be a junior homonym of
> Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely different question
> from whether or not it is a species or a subspecies. Regardless of its
> taxonomic status, it cannot be named "domesticus", unless the genus it
> was placed in formerly, Bibos, is restored as a valid genus. Evidently,
> that is why no one had recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't
> become a problem until Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which
> means that Wilckens' name requires a replacement.
>
> But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find
> Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious as
> to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done) something
> about it.
>
> Peace,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:42:54 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue
> Message-ID: <1697579062.3167387.1634240574673 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> "Bos(s) domesticus" is Latin for "the wife", isn't it? :)
> On Friday, 15 October 2021, 07:50:18 am NZDT, Douglas Yanega via
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over the
> taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether it
> should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My initial
> thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct? Surely
> that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the banteng."
>
> In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's definitive
> work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic
> Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several authorities
> that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet domesticus and
> it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or moved there later.
> The oldest such citation I can find listed is Erxleben, 1777 (there is
> also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The point is this: Bos
> domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng) surely cannot be a
> valid name under the ICZN because the name would be a junior homonym of
> Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely different question
> from whether or not it is a species or a subspecies. Regardless of its
> taxonomic status, it cannot be named "domesticus", unless the genus it
> was placed in formerly, Bibos, is restored as a valid genus. Evidently,
> that is why no one had recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't
> become a problem until Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which
> means that Wilckens' name requires a replacement.
>
> But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find
> Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious as
> to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done) something
> about it.
>
> Peace,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:43:49 -0600
> From: "Michael A. Ivie" <mivie at montana.edu>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue
> Message-ID: <7c4aa044-90c4-fd1c-a995-2a684ac5a939 at montana.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> We used this in my Biosystematics Class today, and we conclude a
> replacement name for this is contrary to the goal of Stability. Two
> better options than a replacement name name are available: First, search
> for prevailing usage under 23.9.1. There should be 25 uses of a bovid
> name in the last 50 years if you search everywhere. The Code does not
> say the species epithet has to be used in this combination in all those
> uses, right? So, uses in Bibos would count.
>
> If not, there is 81.2.1. If two names are homonyms the older homonym may
> be "totally suppressed", i.e. suppressed for the purposes of both the
> Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy so that the later
> homonym may continue in use as a valid name.
>
> Thanks for the exercise.
>
> Mike and the class
>
> On 10/14/2021 12:50 PM, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
> > Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over
> > the taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether
> > it should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My
> > initial thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct?
> > Surely that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the
> > banteng."
> >
> > In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's
> > definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
> > Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several
> > authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet
> > domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or
> > moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is
> > Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The
> > point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng)
> > surely cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be
> > a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely
> > different question from whether or not it is a species or a
> > subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named
> > "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is
> > restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had
> > recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until
> > Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name
> > requires a replacement.
> >
> > But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find
> > Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious
> > as to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done)
> > something about it.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 02:31:26 +0200
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue
> Message-ID: <d1a9709f-e060-e7ac-06b4-25f106c8fc1f at gwdg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> Hi Mike,
> I agree. Uses in Bibos would count.
> Art. 23.9.1 can only be applied if Erxleben's and other names have not
> been used after 1899.
>
> The Commission can suppress all previous uses of domesticus prior to
> that of 1905.
>
> Best wishes
> Francisco
>
> Am 15.10.2021 um 00:43 schrieb Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom:
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > We used this in my Biosystematics Class today, and we conclude a
> > replacement name for this is contrary to the goal of Stability. Two
> > better options than a replacement name name are available: First, search
> > for prevailing usage under 23.9.1. There should be 25 uses of a bovid
> > name in the last 50 years if you search everywhere. The Code does not
> > say the species epithet has to be used in this combination in all those
> > uses, right? So, uses in Bibos would count.
> >
> > If not, there is 81.2.1. If two names are homonyms the older homonym may
> > be "totally suppressed", i.e. suppressed for the purposes of both the
> > Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy so that the later
> > homonym may continue in use as a valid name.
> >
> > Thanks for the exercise.
> >
> > Mike and the class
> >
> > On 10/14/2021 12:50 PM, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
> >> Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over
> >> the taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether
> >> it should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My
> >> initial thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct?
> >> Surely that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the
> >> banteng."
> >>
> >> In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's
> >> definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
> >> Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several
> >> authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet
> >> domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or
> >> moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is
> >> Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The
> >> point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng)
> >> surely cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be
> >> a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely
> >> different question from whether or not it is a species or a
> >> subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named
> >> "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is
> >> restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had
> >> recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until
> >> Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name
> >> requires a replacement.
> >>
> >> But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find
> >> Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious
> >> as to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done)
> >> something about it.
> >>
> >> Peace,
> >>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:29:47 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> Cc: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>, taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID:
> <CADN0ud3qhS5SUD1HJow0xDOqziy5oVG39mKi5wRXiphks=
> QwZA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Since the rules of nomenclature are a convention or agreement among like
> minded individuals there is no such thing as 'illegally' renaming taxa.
> Anyone is free to conform to the rules entirely, in part, or not at all. It
> is inappropriate, in my opinion, for any taxacom member to make accusations
> of 'illegal' actions in taxonomy against other taxonomists. There is no
> such thing, and it is not a collegial form of communication on this list -
> in my opinion. Hope I am not alone in that.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:10 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear all,
> > having read this latest Scott Thomson rant, I note that it is simply a
> > justification of sorts for his ongoing taxonomic vandalism which he has
> > chosen not to mention to his readers.
> > It rehashes the long discredited claims of his Kaiser et al (2013)
> > manifesto calling for destruction of the ICZN Code and fails to mention
> > that he has illegally renamed several species and genera of turtle,
> > including Wollumbinia, for which he has illegally coined the name
> Myuchelys
> > as a junior synonym. ... a bastard name that he desperately tries to get
> > others to name.
> > So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> > "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the rules
> > of the ICZN.
> > This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> the
> > science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> Thomson
> > and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in contempt
> > of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their names to
> gullible
> > others.
> > The end result will be lots of undescribed biodiversity becoming extinct
> > even before it is named!
> > Fortunately there is already a paper that deals with the Thomson rant,
> and
> > I post a link to it below.
> > All the best
> > Raymond Hoser
> >
> > Hoser, R. T. 2013. The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
> > ethics,
> > quality publications and strict compliance with the rules of
> nomenclature.
> > *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *18:2-79.
> >
> > http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm
> > Smuggled.com <http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm>
> > Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Issue 18, published 29 April 2013.
> To
> > download the individual paper or the journal in full, click on the
> relevant
> > linked text below:
> > www.smuggled.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> > Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:49 AM
> > *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> >
> > Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance
> >
> > Is on my Research Gate.
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it is
> > > published (and a link if it is open access).
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Daniel,
> > >>
> > >> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
> > >>
> > >> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
> > >> different
> > >> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
> > >> giraffe
> > >> though from different perspectives.
> > >>
> > >> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi
> rotiensis
> > it
> > >> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the CITES
> > >> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work
> since
> > >> this time would indicate it is a species.
> > >>
> > >> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than
> others.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers Scott
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> > >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I recently came across this publication:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
> > >> >
> > >> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
> > >> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind
> > this
> > >> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T.
> > mearnsi
> > >> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead
> > suggest
> > >> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
> > >> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear that
> > >> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as
> > well
> > >> > as biogeographically".
> > >> >
> > >> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for pure
> > >> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining
> > about
> > >> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North
> > America
> > >> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
> > >> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels.
> > They
> > >> > conclude:
> > >> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
> > >> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
> > >> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
> > >> >
> > >> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
> > >> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
> > >> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically
> dominated
> > by
> > >> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves
> out
> > >> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
> > >> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a
> more
> > >> > holistic classification system, including all
> > >> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single
> > ones
> > >> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
> > >> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially
> squirrels,
> > >> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
> > >> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly
> > contribute
> > >> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
> > >> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
> > >> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
> > >> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which
> do
> > >> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent
> than
> > >> > the 1990s.
> > >> >
> > >> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
> > >> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
> > >> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to
> > establish
> > >> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and average
> > >> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while
> > disregarding
> > >> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
> > >> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
> > >> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way
> to
> > >> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is
> also
> > >> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements
> that
> > >> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in
> > the
> > >> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
> > >> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > The same journal also published this:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
> > >> >
> > >> > Abstract (in part):
> > >> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
> > >> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic
> recognition
> > >> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category
> whereas
> > >> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs)
> > are
> > >> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned
> > to a
> > >> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
> > >> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo-
> and a
> > >> > paratype specimen."
> > >> >
> > >> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but
> > still
> > >> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this
> will
> > >> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
> > >> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
> > >> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
> China.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > >> 1987-2021.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Scott Thomson
> > >>
> > >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> > >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > >> Brasil
> > >>
> > >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> > >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >> >
> > >> Skype: Faendalimas
> > >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > 1987-2021.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Thomson
> >
> > Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > Petrópolis, Manaus
> > State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > Brasil
> >
> > http://www.carettochelys.com
> > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > <
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >
> > Skype: Faendalimas
> > Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:05:55 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> Cc: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>, taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID:
> <CADN0ud1L2ALNAzLzu2KVND+ROHFBDk9Dg7=7giRD=
> LxCW_AVcg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I won't engage in taking sides over issues I have not investigated (and
> don't intend to in this case). As for Australian courts mandating ICZN
> rules - that's an interesting take. Can anyone else verify that? And also,
> how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating legislation
> (which is what this would seem to be)?
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:56 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
>
> > John,
> > thanks for your post.
> > FYI The courts here in Australia ruled that Australian scientists are
> > legally bound by the rules of the ICZN, so I maintain my comments.
> > But please explain your noticeable silence in terms of the ridiculous
> > false claims made against me and other victims of the scams, by Kaiser,
> > Wuster and Thomson, noting you are seeking a collegiate vibe here?
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> > Raymond Hoser
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 1:29 PM
> > *To:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> > *Cc:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>; taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> > Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> > self-gratification.
> >
> > Since the rules of nomenclature are a convention or agreement among like
> > minded individuals there is no such thing as 'illegally' renaming taxa.
> > Anyone is free to conform to the rules entirely, in part, or not at all.
> It
> > is inappropriate, in my opinion, for any taxacom member to make
> accusations
> > of 'illegal' actions in taxonomy against other taxonomists. There is no
> > such thing, and it is not a collegial form of communication on this list
> -
> > in my opinion. Hope I am not alone in that.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:10 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> > having read this latest Scott Thomson rant, I note that it is simply a
> > justification of sorts for his ongoing taxonomic vandalism which he has
> > chosen not to mention to his readers.
> > It rehashes the long discredited claims of his Kaiser et al (2013)
> > manifesto calling for destruction of the ICZN Code and fails to mention
> > that he has illegally renamed several species and genera of turtle,
> > including Wollumbinia, for which he has illegally coined the name
> Myuchelys
> > as a junior synonym. ... a bastard name that he desperately tries to get
> > others to name.
> > So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> > "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the rules
> > of the ICZN.
> > This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> the
> > science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> Thomson
> > and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in contempt
> > of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their names to
> gullible
> > others.
> > The end result will be lots of undescribed biodiversity becoming extinct
> > even before it is named!
> > Fortunately there is already a paper that deals with the Thomson rant,
> and
> > I post a link to it below.
> > All the best
> > Raymond Hoser
> >
> > Hoser, R. T. 2013. The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
> > ethics,
> > quality publications and strict compliance with the rules of
> nomenclature.
> > *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *18:2-79.
> >
> > http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm
> > Smuggled.com <http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm>
> > Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Issue 18, published 29 April 2013.
> To
> > download the individual paper or the journal in full, click on the
> relevant
> > linked text below:
> > www.smuggled.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> > Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:49 AM
> > *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> >
> > Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance
> >
> > Is on my Research Gate.
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it is
> > > published (and a link if it is open access).
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Daniel,
> > >>
> > >> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
> > >>
> > >> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
> > >> different
> > >> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
> > >> giraffe
> > >> though from different perspectives.
> > >>
> > >> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi
> rotiensis
> > it
> > >> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the CITES
> > >> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work
> since
> > >> this time would indicate it is a species.
> > >>
> > >> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than
> others.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers Scott
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> > >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I recently came across this publication:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
> > >> >
> > >> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
> > >> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind
> > this
> > >> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T.
> > mearnsi
> > >> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead
> > suggest
> > >> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
> > >> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear that
> > >> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as
> > well
> > >> > as biogeographically".
> > >> >
> > >> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for pure
> > >> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining
> > about
> > >> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North
> > America
> > >> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
> > >> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels.
> > They
> > >> > conclude:
> > >> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
> > >> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
> > >> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
> > >> >
> > >> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
> > >> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
> > >> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically
> dominated
> > by
> > >> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves
> out
> > >> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
> > >> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a
> more
> > >> > holistic classification system, including all
> > >> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single
> > ones
> > >> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
> > >> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially
> squirrels,
> > >> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
> > >> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly
> > contribute
> > >> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
> > >> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
> > >> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
> > >> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which
> do
> > >> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent
> than
> > >> > the 1990s.
> > >> >
> > >> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
> > >> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
> > >> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to
> > establish
> > >> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and average
> > >> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while
> > disregarding
> > >> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
> > >> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
> > >> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way
> to
> > >> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is
> also
> > >> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements
> that
> > >> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in
> > the
> > >> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
> > >> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > The same journal also published this:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
> > >> >
> > >> > Abstract (in part):
> > >> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
> > >> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic
> recognition
> > >> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category
> whereas
> > >> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs)
> > are
> > >> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned
> > to a
> > >> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
> > >> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo-
> and a
> > >> > paratype specimen."
> > >> >
> > >> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but
> > still
> > >> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this
> will
> > >> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
> > >> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
> > >> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
> China.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > >> 1987-2021.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Scott Thomson
> > >>
> > >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> > >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > >> Brasil
> > >>
> > >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> > >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >> >
> > >> Skype: Faendalimas
> > >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > 1987-2021.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Thomson
> >
> > Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > Petrópolis, Manaus
> > State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > Brasil
> >
> > http://www.carettochelys.com
> > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > <
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >
> > Skype: Faendalimas
> > Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 00:35:47 -0400
> From: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> To: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Cc: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>, taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADRwqwhtiwiQUpq8BjZWBtUe383FCKOf7MwZPQTavVkMKyv2QA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi John,
>
> As for Australian courts mandating ICZN rules - that's an interesting take.
> Can anyone else verify that?
>
> They didn't.
>
>
> And also, how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating
> legislation (which is what this would seem to be)?
>
> They cannot
>
> Cheers Scott
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 12:06 AM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I won't engage in taking sides over issues I have not investigated (and
> > don't intend to in this case). As for Australian courts mandating ICZN
> > rules - that's an interesting take. Can anyone else verify that? And
> also,
> > how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating legislation
> > (which is what this would seem to be)?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:56 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >> thanks for your post.
> >> FYI The courts here in Australia ruled that Australian scientists are
> >> legally bound by the rules of the ICZN, so I maintain my comments.
> >> But please explain your noticeable silence in terms of the ridiculous
> >> false claims made against me and other victims of the scams, by Kaiser,
> >> Wuster and Thomson, noting you are seeking a collegiate vibe here?
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >>
> >> Raymond Hoser
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 1:29 PM
> >> *To:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> >> *Cc:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>; taxacom <
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> >> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> >> self-gratification.
> >>
> >> Since the rules of nomenclature are a convention or agreement among like
> >> minded individuals there is no such thing as 'illegally' renaming taxa.
> >> Anyone is free to conform to the rules entirely, in part, or not at
> all. It
> >> is inappropriate, in my opinion, for any taxacom member to make
> accusations
> >> of 'illegal' actions in taxonomy against other taxonomists. There is no
> >> such thing, and it is not a collegial form of communication on this
> list -
> >> in my opinion. Hope I am not alone in that.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:10 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> >> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >> having read this latest Scott Thomson rant, I note that it is simply a
> >> justification of sorts for his ongoing taxonomic vandalism which he has
> >> chosen not to mention to his readers.
> >> It rehashes the long discredited claims of his Kaiser et al (2013)
> >> manifesto calling for destruction of the ICZN Code and fails to mention
> >> that he has illegally renamed several species and genera of turtle,
> >> including Wollumbinia, for which he has illegally coined the name
> Myuchelys
> >> as a junior synonym. ... a bastard name that he desperately tries to get
> >> others to name.
> >> So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> >> "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the
> rules
> >> of the ICZN.
> >> This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> >> the science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> >> Thomson and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in
> >> contempt of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their
> names to
> >> gullible others.
> >> The end result will be lots of undescribed biodiversity becoming extinct
> >> even before it is named!
> >> Fortunately there is already a paper that deals with the Thomson rant,
> >> and I post a link to it below.
> >> All the best
> >> Raymond Hoser
> >>
> >> Hoser, R. T. 2013. The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
> >> ethics,
> >> quality publications and strict compliance with the rules of
> >> nomenclature.
> >> *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *18:2-79.
> >>
> >> http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm
> >> Smuggled.com <http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm>
> >> Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Issue 18, published 29 April 2013.
> >> To download the individual paper or the journal in full, click on the
> >> relevant linked text below:
> >> www.smuggled.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> >> Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:49 AM
> >> *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> >>
> >> Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance
> >>
> >> Is on my Research Gate.
> >>
> >> Cheers Scott
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it
> is
> >> > published (and a link if it is open access).
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> >> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Daniel,
> >> >>
> >> >> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
> >> >> different
> >> >> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
> >> >> giraffe
> >> >> though from different perspectives.
> >> >>
> >> >> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi
> >> rotiensis it
> >> >> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the
> CITES
> >> >> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work
> since
> >> >> this time would indicate it is a species.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than
> others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers Scott
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> >> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I recently came across this publication:
> >> >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
> >> >> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind
> >> this
> >> >> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T.
> >> mearnsi
> >> >> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead
> >> suggest
> >> >> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
> >> >> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear
> that
> >> >> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as
> >> well
> >> >> > as biogeographically".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for
> pure
> >> >> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining
> >> about
> >> >> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North
> >> America
> >> >> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
> >> >> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels.
> >> They
> >> >> > conclude:
> >> >> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
> >> >> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
> >> >> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
> >> >> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
> >> >> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically
> >> dominated by
> >> >> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves
> >> out
> >> >> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
> >> >> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a
> >> more
> >> >> > holistic classification system, including all
> >> >> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single
> >> ones
> >> >> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
> >> >> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially
> squirrels,
> >> >> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
> >> >> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly
> >> contribute
> >> >> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
> >> >> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
> >> >> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
> >> >> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which
> do
> >> >> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent
> than
> >> >> > the 1990s.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
> >> >> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
> >> >> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to
> >> establish
> >> >> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and
> average
> >> >> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while
> >> disregarding
> >> >> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
> >> >> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
> >> >> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way
> >> to
> >> >> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is
> also
> >> >> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements
> that
> >> >> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in
> >> the
> >> >> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
> >> >> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The same journal also published this:
> >> >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Abstract (in part):
> >> >> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
> >> >> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic
> >> recognition
> >> >> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category
> >> whereas
> >> >> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs)
> >> are
> >> >> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned
> >> to a
> >> >> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
> >> >> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo-
> and
> >> a
> >> >> > paratype specimen."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but
> >> still
> >> >> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this
> >> will
> >> >> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
> >> >> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
> >> >> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
> China.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> >> >> 1987-2021.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Scott Thomson
> >> >>
> >> >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> >> >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> >> >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> >> >> Brasil
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> >> >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> >> >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> >> >> <
> >> >>
> >>
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> >> >> >
> >> >> Skype: Faendalimas
> >> >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> >> 1987-2021.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Scott Thomson
> >>
> >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> >> Brasil
> >>
> >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> >> <
> >>
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> >> >
> >> Skype: Faendalimas
> >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 01:27:45 -0400
> From: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> To: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> Cc: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>, taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADRwqwhRXuDG4jogqPQUJE-Y3Bj6F3RnCdGAaJ5vXofON+2B_A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> That case was in regards to your case against DSE over venomoid snakes for
> the most part. The ICZN is not mentioned in the ruling. It is also by the
> State Victoian Court and they do not have jurisdiction over the rest of
> Australia let alone international issues.
>
> Ray the ICZN comes under the umbrella of the IUBS making it an
> International Agreement and its a voluntary one at that. The GSLWG global
> species list working group is also under the umbrella of the IUBS hence is
> also an international agreement. Local courts cannot and do not because
> they know better, dictate international organizations.
>
> You won that case against DSE and from my understanding of it you should
> have, but the courts did not demand all Australian Scietists have to follow
> the code, they cannot do that.
>
> Cheers Scott
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 12:49 AM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
>
> > See VCAT Hoser V DSE, judgement and transcript 2015. It is all there!
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:35 PM
> > *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>; taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> > Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> > self-gratification.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > As for Australian courts mandating ICZN rules - that's an interesting
> > take. Can anyone else verify that?
> >
> > They didn't.
> >
> >
> > And also, how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating
> > legislation (which is what this would seem to be)?
> >
> > They cannot
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 12:06 AM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I won't engage in taking sides over issues I have not investigated (and
> > don't intend to in this case). As for Australian courts mandating ICZN
> > rules - that's an interesting take. Can anyone else verify that? And
> also,
> > how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating legislation
> > (which is what this would seem to be)?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:56 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > thanks for your post.
> > FYI The courts here in Australia ruled that Australian scientists are
> > legally bound by the rules of the ICZN, so I maintain my comments.
> > But please explain your noticeable silence in terms of the ridiculous
> > false claims made against me and other victims of the scams, by Kaiser,
> > Wuster and Thomson, noting you are seeking a collegiate vibe here?
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> > Raymond Hoser
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 1:29 PM
> > *To:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> > *Cc:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>; taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> > Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> > self-gratification.
> >
> > Since the rules of nomenclature are a convention or agreement among like
> > minded individuals there is no such thing as 'illegally' renaming taxa.
> > Anyone is free to conform to the rules entirely, in part, or not at all.
> It
> > is inappropriate, in my opinion, for any taxacom member to make
> accusations
> > of 'illegal' actions in taxonomy against other taxonomists. There is no
> > such thing, and it is not a collegial form of communication on this list
> -
> > in my opinion. Hope I am not alone in that.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:10 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> > having read this latest Scott Thomson rant, I note that it is simply a
> > justification of sorts for his ongoing taxonomic vandalism which he has
> > chosen not to mention to his readers.
> > It rehashes the long discredited claims of his Kaiser et al (2013)
> > manifesto calling for destruction of the ICZN Code and fails to mention
> > that he has illegally renamed several species and genera of turtle,
> > including Wollumbinia, for which he has illegally coined the name
> Myuchelys
> > as a junior synonym. ... a bastard name that he desperately tries to get
> > others to name.
> > So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> > "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the rules
> > of the ICZN.
> > This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> the
> > science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> Thomson
> > and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in contempt
> > of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their names to
> gullible
> > others.
> > The end result will be lots of undescribed biodiversity becoming extinct
> > even before it is named!
> > Fortunately there is already a paper that deals with the Thomson rant,
> and
> > I post a link to it below.
> > All the best
> > Raymond Hoser
> >
> > Hoser, R. T. 2013. The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
> > ethics,
> > quality publications and strict compliance with the rules of
> nomenclature.
> > *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *18:2-79.
> >
> > http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm
> > Smuggled.com <http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm>
> > Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Issue 18, published 29 April 2013.
> To
> > download the individual paper or the journal in full, click on the
> relevant
> > linked text below:
> > www.smuggled.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> > Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:49 AM
> > *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> >
> > Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance
> >
> > Is on my Research Gate.
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it is
> > > published (and a link if it is open access).
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> > > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Daniel,
> > >>
> > >> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
> > >>
> > >> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
> > >> different
> > >> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
> > >> giraffe
> > >> though from different perspectives.
> > >>
> > >> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi
> rotiensis
> > it
> > >> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the CITES
> > >> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work
> since
> > >> this time would indicate it is a species.
> > >>
> > >> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than
> others.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers Scott
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> > >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I recently came across this publication:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
> > >> >
> > >> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
> > >> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind
> > this
> > >> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T.
> > mearnsi
> > >> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead
> > suggest
> > >> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
> > >> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear that
> > >> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as
> > well
> > >> > as biogeographically".
> > >> >
> > >> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for pure
> > >> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining
> > about
> > >> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North
> > America
> > >> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
> > >> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels.
> > They
> > >> > conclude:
> > >> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
> > >> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
> > >> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
> > >> >
> > >> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
> > >> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
> > >> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically
> dominated
> > by
> > >> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves
> out
> > >> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
> > >> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a
> more
> > >> > holistic classification system, including all
> > >> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single
> > ones
> > >> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
> > >> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially
> squirrels,
> > >> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
> > >> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly
> > contribute
> > >> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
> > >> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
> > >> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
> > >> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which
> do
> > >> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent
> than
> > >> > the 1990s.
> > >> >
> > >> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
> > >> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
> > >> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to
> > establish
> > >> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and average
> > >> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while
> > disregarding
> > >> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
> > >> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
> > >> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way
> to
> > >> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is
> also
> > >> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements
> that
> > >> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in
> > the
> > >> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
> > >> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > The same journal also published this:
> > >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
> > >> >
> > >> > Abstract (in part):
> > >> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
> > >> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic
> recognition
> > >> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category
> whereas
> > >> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs)
> > are
> > >> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned
> > to a
> > >> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
> > >> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo-
> and a
> > >> > paratype specimen."
> > >> >
> > >> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but
> > still
> > >> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this
> will
> > >> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
> > >> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
> > >> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
> China.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > >> 1987-2021.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Scott Thomson
> > >>
> > >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> > >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > >> Brasil
> > >>
> > >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> > >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >> >
> > >> Skype: Faendalimas
> > >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> > 1987-2021.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Thomson
> >
> > Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> > Petrópolis, Manaus
> > State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> > Brasil
> >
> > http://www.carettochelys.com
> > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> > Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> > <
> >
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> > >
> > Skype: Faendalimas
> > Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> > Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:30:49 +0300
> From: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> To: scott.thomson321 at gmail.com, Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> (Scott Thomson)
> Message-ID:
> <CACA4WzCsXiBA=2F+sE8xr=
> ErBTuX427ZFU3LasLYRXjAfCBfqQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Scott,
> I see five papers in that collection (Towards a global list of accepted
> species,
>
> https://link.springer.com/journal/13127/topicalCollection/AC_82162ae498991fe393589cc98ba425d4
> ).
> If those are all that are planned for now, I think that it would be useful
> to organize an online mini-meeting and invite the authors and the broader
> community. I would personally enjoy learning the main points of each paper
> in an interactive way.
> Kind regards,
>
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 08:41:44 -0400
> From: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> To: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> (Scott Thomson)
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADRwqwiKM2ddyH5H2j8_7OzqUT3fgn1FUo6G9fcJToSd-zRwpg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> We are waiting for one last paper in this series, led by Richard Pyle.
> However we are very interested in any meeting opportunities to further
> explain and discuss this project with people.
>
> Cheers Scott
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 4:31 AM Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <
> biotemail at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott,
> > I see five papers in that collection (Towards a global list of accepted
> > species,
> >
> https://link.springer.com/journal/13127/topicalCollection/AC_82162ae498991fe393589cc98ba425d4
> ).
> > If those are all that are planned for now, I think that it would be
> useful
> > to organize an online mini-meeting and invite the authors and the broader
> > community. I would personally enjoy learning the main points of each
> paper
> > in an interactive way.
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> > FI-20014 University of Turku
> > Finland
> > Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> > ResearchGate profile
> > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> > Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> > <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:44:20 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>, taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADN0ud2tN2wi88sSaA1i4PPUN5m12BnDs-tVUYdmMUgW9fUkJA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Is Scott correct Ramond? that the legal judgement you referred to did not
> involve legal endorsement of ICUN rules?
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:27 AM Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That case was in regards to your case against DSE over venomoid snakes
> for
> > the most part. The ICZN is not mentioned in the ruling. It is also by the
> > State Victoian Court and they do not have jurisdiction over the rest of
> > Australia let alone international issues.
> >
> > Ray the ICZN comes under the umbrella of the IUBS making it an
> > International Agreement and its a voluntary one at that. The GSLWG global
> > species list working group is also under the umbrella of the IUBS hence
> is
> > also an international agreement. Local courts cannot and do not because
> > they know better, dictate international organizations.
> >
> > You won that case against DSE and from my understanding of it you should
> > have, but the courts did not demand all Australian Scietists have to
> follow
> > the code, they cannot do that.
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 12:49 AM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> See VCAT Hoser V DSE, judgement and transcript 2015. It is all there!
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:35 PM
> >> *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> *Cc:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>; taxacom <
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> >> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> >> self-gratification.
> >>
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> As for Australian courts mandating ICZN rules - that's an interesting
> >> take. Can anyone else verify that?
> >>
> >> They didn't.
> >>
> >>
> >> And also, how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating
> >> legislation (which is what this would seem to be)?
> >>
> >> They cannot
> >>
> >> Cheers Scott
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 12:06 AM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I won't engage in taking sides over issues I have not investigated (and
> >> don't intend to in this case). As for Australian courts mandating ICZN
> >> rules - that's an interesting take. Can anyone else verify that? And
> also,
> >> how do Australian courts come to be in a position of creating
> legislation
> >> (which is what this would seem to be)?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:56 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> >> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> John,
> >> thanks for your post.
> >> FYI The courts here in Australia ruled that Australian scientists are
> >> legally bound by the rules of the ICZN, so I maintain my comments.
> >> But please explain your noticeable silence in terms of the ridiculous
> >> false claims made against me and other victims of the scams, by Kaiser,
> >> Wuster and Thomson, noting you are seeking a collegiate vibe here?
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >>
> >> Raymond Hoser
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 1:29 PM
> >> *To:* Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au>
> >> *Cc:* Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>; taxacom <
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> >> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his own
> >> self-gratification.
> >>
> >> Since the rules of nomenclature are a convention or agreement among like
> >> minded individuals there is no such thing as 'illegally' renaming taxa.
> >> Anyone is free to conform to the rules entirely, in part, or not at
> all. It
> >> is inappropriate, in my opinion, for any taxacom member to make
> accusations
> >> of 'illegal' actions in taxonomy against other taxonomists. There is no
> >> such thing, and it is not a collegial form of communication on this
> list -
> >> in my opinion. Hope I am not alone in that.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:10 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
> >> viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >> having read this latest Scott Thomson rant, I note that it is simply a
> >> justification of sorts for his ongoing taxonomic vandalism which he has
> >> chosen not to mention to his readers.
> >> It rehashes the long discredited claims of his Kaiser et al (2013)
> >> manifesto calling for destruction of the ICZN Code and fails to mention
> >> that he has illegally renamed several species and genera of turtle,
> >> including Wollumbinia, for which he has illegally coined the name
> Myuchelys
> >> as a junior synonym. ... a bastard name that he desperately tries to get
> >> others to name.
> >> So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> >> "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the
> rules
> >> of the ICZN.
> >> This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> >> the science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> >> Thomson and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in
> >> contempt of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their
> names to
> >> gullible others.
> >> The end result will be lots of undescribed biodiversity becoming extinct
> >> even before it is named!
> >> Fortunately there is already a paper that deals with the Thomson rant,
> >> and I post a link to it below.
> >> All the best
> >> Raymond Hoser
> >>
> >> Hoser, R. T. 2013. The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
> >> ethics,
> >> quality publications and strict compliance with the rules of
> >> nomenclature.
> >> *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *18:2-79.
> >>
> >> http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm
> >> Smuggled.com <http://www.smuggled.com/AJH-I18-Split.htm>
> >> Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Issue 18, published 29 April 2013.
> >> To download the individual paper or the journal in full, click on the
> >> relevant linked text below:
> >> www.smuggled.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> >> Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, 15 October 2021 3:49 AM
> >> *To:* John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> >>
> >> Followup as requested the paper on Consequences came out today.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355208487_Towards_a_global_list_of_accepted_species_II_Consequences_of_inadequate_taxonomic_list_governance
> >>
> >> Is on my Research Gate.
> >>
> >> Cheers Scott
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 2:13 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Scott - please make sure to announce your article on Taxacom when it
> is
> >> > published (and a link if it is open access).
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> >> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Daniel,
> >> >>
> >> >> sorry I forgot to answer your specific question.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the paper I have in press we look at several case studies. For
> >> >> different
> >> >> points. On this issue the two we use are the tupunali orangutan and
> >> >> giraffe
> >> >> though from different perspectives.
> >> >>
> >> >> One we did not use is in the description of Chelodina mccordi
> >> rotiensis it
> >> >> was stated that it was made a subspecies so it would inherit the
> CITES
> >> >> status of Chelodina mccordi without the need for assessment. Work
> since
> >> >> this time would indicate it is a species.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are numerous examples of this, some are less obvious than
> others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers Scott
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom <
> >> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I recently came across this publication:
> >> >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2020.1857852
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In it, the authors "describe" a new subgenus for a species of North
> >> >> > American squirrel (Tamiasciurus mearnsi). The driving force behind
> >> this
> >> >> > seems to be that "Tamiasciurus" means "hoarder squirrel", and T.
> >> mearnsi
> >> >> > doesn't hoard, so the genus name in inappropriate. They instead
> >> suggest
> >> >> > "pseudotamias" (sic) as a subgenus (narrowly avoiding the already
> >> >> > proposed Pseudotamia Stephens, 1829), despite also making clear
> that
> >> >> > this species is "a descendant of T. douglasii, phylogenetically as
> >> well
> >> >> > as biogeographically".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Another driving force behind this new subgenus appear to be for
> pure
> >> >> > conservation reasons. The authors spend a lot of time complaining
> >> about
> >> >> > how little funds are allocated to squirrel conservation in North
> >> America
> >> >> > (only 0.00001% of GDP! and that is for all small mammals, not just
> >> >> > squirrels!), and the hunting policies of North American squirrels.
> >> They
> >> >> > conclude:
> >> >> > "Also, a wider structural change is needed in the approach of how
> >> >> > taxonomy, research and conservation management are done for a more
> >> >> > sustainable human-nature interaction."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This comes at the heels of this confused gem:
> >> >> > "Taxonomy as a field of study is rather complex and classifications
> >> >> > remain widely disagreed upon and unclear. Often chaotically
> >> dominated by
> >> >> > just a few players, institutions, and mindsets, this system leaves
> >> out
> >> >> > the wider public. It is not sustainable, hardly meaningful, and
> >> >> > certainly not scientific or democratic. This can be resolved by a
> >> more
> >> >> > holistic classification system, including all
> >> >> > species-/genera-interfering characteristics rather than only single
> >> ones
> >> >> > (morphological appearance, genetical relations etc.). Additionally,
> >> >> > increased budget assignments for small mammals, especially
> squirrels,
> >> >> > can have a major impact on their conservation success. Higher law
> >> >> > enforcement for hunting regulations can additionally strongly
> >> contribute
> >> >> > to science-based management for these squirrels."
> >> >> > and a few tables where they show how "taxonomy and classification
> >> >> > disputes exist and affect conservation efficiency", some of which
> >> >> > examples seem to have no connection to taxonomy, and many of which
> do
> >> >> > not reference any taxonomic or phylogenetic research more recent
> than
> >> >> > the 1990s.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The part about how we should use a "holistic classification system,
> >> >> > including all species-/genera-interfering characteristics" is
> >> >> > particularly weird, as the only "characteristics" they use to
> >> establish
> >> >> > this new subgenus are morphometrics (average body length and
> average
> >> >> > body mass) and the differences in hoarding behaviour, while
> >> disregarding
> >> >> > all genetic and other moprhological data.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is a long and rambling paper, but the essence (as far as I can
> >> >> > tell) is that the authors think that more money should be spent on
> >> >> > conserving a squirrel (more than 0.00001% of GDP), and the best way
> >> to
> >> >> > do so is to move it to a new subgenus. I assume this subgenus is
> also
> >> >> > available from this publication, as they do include measurements
> that
> >> >> > purportedly separate the type species from the other two species in
> >> the
> >> >> > genus (which according to the sources they cite would the form
> >> >> > paraphyletic nominate subgenus).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The same journal also published this:
> >> >> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250003.2014.895060
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Abstract (in part):
> >> >> > "While we are fully aware of the high degree of arbitrariness of
> >> >> > subspecific designations, it is also a fact that taxonomic
> >> recognition
> >> >> > supports conservation, because subspecies are a legal category
> >> whereas
> >> >> > other designations (such as evolutionarily significant units, ESUs)
> >> are
> >> >> > not. We therefore argue that the Mesola red deer should be assigned
> >> to a
> >> >> > subspecies of their own, and give an official description of Cervus
> >> >> > elaphus italicus nova ssp., including the designation of a holo-
> and
> >> a
> >> >> > paratype specimen."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They seem to make a much better argument than the first paper, but
> >> still
> >> >> > base their decision to describe a new taxon partially on how this
> >> will
> >> >> > make it easier to get funding for conservation work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am wondering, does anyone know more examples like this? Where
> >> >> > conservation issues are driving or influencing taxonomic decisions?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
> >> >> > Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou,
> China.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ask me about chewing lice!
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> >> >> 1987-2021.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Scott Thomson
> >> >>
> >> >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> >> >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> >> >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> >> >> Brasil
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> >> >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> >> >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> >> >> <
> >> >>
> >>
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> >> >> >
> >> >> Skype: Faendalimas
> >> >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> >> 1987-2021.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Scott Thomson
> >>
> >> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> >> Petrópolis, Manaus
> >> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> >> Brasil
> >>
> >> http://www.carettochelys.com
> >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> >> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> >> <
> >>
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> >> >
> >> Skype: Faendalimas
> >> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 19:08:41 +0300
> From: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> To: Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes
> (Scott Thomson)
> Message-ID:
> <CACA4WzCmXe9fkwWw_LtHJdZha7sMq+F_fK2CfN=
> 4-HZoRAbK2Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Super! Let's wait for the last paper then!
>
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
>
>
>
>
> El vie, 15 oct 2021 a las 15:41, Scott Thomson (<
> scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > We are waiting for one last paper in this series, led by Richard Pyle.
> > However we are very interested in any meeting opportunities to further
> > explain and discuss this project with people.
> >
> > Cheers Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 4:31 AM Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <
> > biotemail at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Scott,
> >> I see five papers in that collection (Towards a global list of accepted
> >> species,
> >>
> https://link.springer.com/journal/13127/topicalCollection/AC_82162ae498991fe393589cc98ba425d4
> ).
> >> If those are all that are planned for now, I think that it would be
> useful
> >> to organize an online mini-meeting and invite the authors and the
> broader
> >> community. I would personally enjoy learning the main points of each
> paper
> >> in an interactive way.
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> >> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> >> FI-20014 University of Turku
> >> Finland
> >> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> >> ResearchGate profile
> >> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> >> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> >> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 09:54:43 -0700
> From: Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Describing taxa for conservation purposes -
> Scott Thomson's latest attempt to sabotage the ICZN Code for his
> own
> self-gratification.
> Message-ID: <24613f48-2ed9-3eda-381b-d306b098093f at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Since I have Mr. Hoser on a spam filter, I never see anything he posts
> unless other people rise to his bait, as in this case. I do suggest that
> others consider the benefit of blocking him as I do, it makes for a
> little more peace of mind.
>
> That aside, I do feel that there are two points that require a very
> direct and serious rebuttal:
>
> >> So now his latest plot is to set himself up as head honcho to make
> >> "species lists" which everyone else will use and in contempt of the
> rules
> >> of the ICZN.
>
> The ICZN does in fact actively encourage taxonomic specialist
> associations to create official lists that they can then submit to the
> Commission for formal endorsement, under the provisions of Article 79,
> known as the LAN (Lists of Available Names). We would be very happy to
> have the herpetological community submit such a proposal to us, and even
> if they choose not to engage with the Commission, *we support the
> principle* that the community should be able to determine, *by
> consensus*, how they wish to handle matters within their disciplines.
>
> The existence of the Commission is, itself, due to a consensus agreement
> across the entire zoological community, so it would be absurdly
> hypocritical to say that consensus decisions by segments of that
> community are "in contempt of the rules" - consensus is EXACTLY how
> rules are made in the first place. Obviously Mr. Hoser personally
> objects to being on the receiving end of a community boycott, but
> instead of changing his behavior to adhere to the ethical and scientific
> standards of the community, he screams "foul" and just makes things
> worse. This is beyond tiresome.
>
> >> This is extremely dangerous as no budding scientist will want to enter
> the
> >> science of taxonomy, as they risk their life's work being stolen by
> Thomson
> >> and the Wuster gang, who will summarily rename and all sundry in
> contempt
> >> of the rules of the Code and then improperly peddle their names to
> gullible
> >> others.
>
> The only person I know of who has actively stolen (or, rather, attempted
> to steal) the life's work of a budding scientist is Raymond Hoser, who
> seems to have conveniently forgotten who Travis Thomas is. Accusing
> others of the crimes for which one is guilty (i.e., claiming to be the
> victim when one is actually the perpetrator) is one of the oldest, and
> sorriest, tricks in the book, and it seems to be literally the ONLY
> weapon in Mr. Hoser's arsenal.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
>
> The day that Mr. Hoser makes a *formal public apology* for the
> Macrochelys case - and the many others where he has published
> descriptions pre-emptively (for taxa that other researchers intended to
> name) - is the day I will unblock him from my feed, and start to take
> him seriously. Until that day, it would be fantastic if he would just go
> away, and stay silent, instead of trying to stir up trouble.
>
> There is a very old internet saying (as the internet goes), and it's
> very apropos here:
>
> DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 186, Issue 6
> ***************************************
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list