User talk:Faendalimas/archive1

Hi everyone

Interesting project and one I would like to become involved in, I maintain my own site on my specialty the Chelidae (which I note is not in at family level let alone genus as the vertebrata info suggests). Anyway I am happy to take the Chelidae down to species level for you from Pleurodira to all species. I described 5 species of these myself so am actually a taxonimist.

I have one question at the outset. I note that someone has put in a superfamily level for the Pelomedusidae, fine I can live with that but there is no named super family for the Chelidae. So how exactly do I do the branch between the Pelomedisidae and the Chelidae without this named group? or do I just skip over it. Faendalimas 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

I am not sure about the answer to your question. Sometimes people put in a layer of Unassigned Whatever but I am not sure that that is what we should do here. I created a template for Chelidae at Template:Chelidae. If you use this then you can change the taxonavigation more easily later.

Also, all of our species articles are the full genus name then species name even though we list them genus abbrev. species in the last. Otherwise we would have WAY too many duplicates. Some people (especially Keith Edkins) have been creating templates to help format the listing of genera and species.

I have taken the liberty of modifying Rheodytes to demonstrate. Thanks so much for your contributions.

Open2universe 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• thanks for that have fixed my pages then. Faendalimas 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A "real" taxonomist

It's always nice to have a "real" taxonomist on a real taxonomy website. Welcome! Ucucha (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Locality Data info On Species Descriptions

Answer om my talk page. Lycaon 09:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wells

Hi Scott, I am interested, but in a fairly neutral way, in the controversy surrounding Wells etc. I have replied to your posted comment on Talk:Wollumbinia. Basically, my view is that it sets a very dangerous precedent indeed to ignore any taxonomists, including Wells. If there isn't a cast iron refutation of the availability of his names, then give him the naming rights, there is very little "glory" in it really, but nevertheless take the opportunity to publish far better redescriptions of his taxa, if you can, to show that you are the better taxonomist (if you indeed are). I have some sympathy with Wells et al. because I too am an "independent", who is facing exclusion and obstruction by some of the local taxonomic community here. Once a precedent is established viz. ignoring some taxonomists, who will be ignored next - where will it end??? Years ago, the ICZN already rejected an application to suppress the taxon names of Wells & Wellington, and quite rightly so in my view! Bad taxonomy is nothing new, and is by no means confined to "amateurs" like Wells... Stho002 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have nothing against Wells or independent taxonomy. Ok basically what happened is that Wells claims his journal is a valid publication under the ICZN. It is not. The ISSN number on the journal as published is not valid it failed three separate searches from three different libraries, including the National Library of Australia which is the governing body for the issue of an ISSN number. He also failed to have the work stored at any valid libraries. As both of these are required for electronic publication the journal is deemed unpublished. Its not even a nomen nudem as even they are actually published. So the name Wollumbinia was never published. Since it was not published I do not have to recognise it even exists, however I have not done that. In the upcoming synonymy of Australian Turtles that Arthur Georges and myself have written, in press, Zootaxa we determine its fate and sink Wollumbinia. We did not put all the info into the Myuchelys paper for reasons of protecting priority. Scott Thomson 12:52 4 May 2009.

• • Yes, your reasoning is the same as that of Z.-Q. Z., from a conversation we had about the issue. However, as I pointed out to him, the Code isn't entirely clear on this matter. IF it was an electronic publication, THEN hard copies need to be lodged in various libraries, but how can you prove that it wasn't validly published FIRST as a hard copy, and only THEN as electronic. If it was published as hard copy first, then all that is required by the Code is that multiple hard copies are "made obtainable". It is unclear exactly what this amounts to, and probably impossible to prove after the fact. Wells ought to get the benefit of the doubt. He can say he printed out multiple hard copies from his own computer, and made them available upon request by writing to the address given at the end of the pdf. Stho002 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, even if unavailable, I disagree with you that it isn't even a nomen nudum. At the very least, Wells' paper has been published, at least electronically, so Wollumbinia is a nomen nudum because it has been published (electronically), but perhaps not in a way that satisfies the requirements for availability according to the Code. Stho002 05:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Also, the fact that it may not be published according to Australian law is irrelevant, as the Code does not require a publication to uphold Australian law! Stho002 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Its not about Australian Law, my mention of the National Library was just that as an Australian Journal Wells would have to apply for an ISSN number from them. He did not. They have no record of it, hence it is not a journal. As such the document is not published in the form it claims and is hence not published. Therefore it is not even a nomen nudem. Wells can say all he likes, there is no meeting of the code at the moment until he does that the paper is not published, and now that the Zootaxa paper is published its publication date will be a junior synonym if he corrects it in the future. The date of publication is the date the journal meets the code. Scott Thomson 6:59, 4 May 2009

'Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.

8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:

8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,

8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and

8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.'

Where does the Code say that a published work needs to be a journal, or requires an ISSN number?

• Reality in the end is that the refutation of the publication has been published and accepted under peer review. The review process accepted our refutation, as in accordance by the ICZN. Therefore the name is unavailable and a complete synonymy is about to finish it off, also accepted, reviewed and in press. It is done now. As soon as the synonymy comes out in a few weeks this article will need to be corrected, which I shall then do as it will not be up to date with current literature. That is what taxonomy is about. Scott Thomson 7:41 4 May 2009.

• • Peer review cannot make an available name unavailable! Only the ICZN can do that by suppression. I shall ensure that the disputed nature of things remains fully evident from the relevant Wikispecies article. By the way, the flipside of all this is that quite apart from issues to do with names, Wells' publication is certainly published when it comes to scientific content. Therefore, he ought to be credited (or criticised) for anything he got right (or wrong), in exactly the same way that one would ordinarily cite a published paper. It would reflect very badly on an author who simply ignored and failed to cite publications relevant to their own. Stho002 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • That is not correct, a reviewer can under the ICZN declare a name unavailable and replace it, this has been done many times in the past, by many taxonomists. The ICZN is only bought in under special circumstances. I have not ignored Wells, ever, cited his papers repeatedly. I also reviewed many of his names in the past. Some I accepted some i did not, and always on the basis of the rules. Its not to do with peer review that just established the general acceptance of the paper. It has passed the review of others and deemed worthy of publication, thats all. I dont see what the dispute is in reality. Do you not believe in the review process of taxonomy? That names are found to be unavailable and need to be replaced? That new arrangements have to be done. Its not all about naming species. Remember also that the ICZN in their ruling on the original Well's and Wellington papers (which I agreed with too) said that it is the experts in the field that should determine through review and usage the correct names for species. This is what we are doing. Scott Thomson 8:21 4 May 2009.

>a reviewer can under the ICZN declare a name unavailable and replace it
please cite the appropriate article in the Code for this
>Do you not believe in the review process of taxonomy? That names are found to be unavailable and need to be replaced?
Yes, of course I believe in the review process of taxonomy (though it sure ain't perfect!). Yes, I believe that names found to be unavailable need to be replaced. What I don't agree with is the intense scrutiny that Wells' paper is being put under in order to find a way to make his name unavailable - like a "witch hunt"! I think you misinterpret the ICZN - "experts in the field that should determine through review and usage the correct names for species" in the sense of taxonomy, not in the sense of declaring names to be unavailable by ganging up on someone and excluding their contributions. Stho002 00:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Australian Biodiversity Record is published as paper first and distributed to whoever asks for them. Strictly speaking, it is not an Electronic Journal although PDFs are made available and distributed to whoever requests them (over 30,000 have been downloaded to numerous institutions and individuals in almost every country in the world over the last year or so to my knowledge).

The National Library of Australia DID issue me with an ISSN Number for the Australian Biodiversity Record when I first decided to publish the Journal, and as instructed by the NLA I have always included it on each printed issue. That my Journal has been secretly investigated by some sort of taxonomic gestapo tactic is not all that surprising given what I have experienced over many years. However next week I will be taking the matter up with the National Library of Australia next week, and one may rest assured that I will be going straight to the top over it.

Wollumbinia was validly published under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature and in my opinion Thomson and Georges know full well that it was. I believe here that an issue at stake is that, quite simply, does the publication of Thomson and Georges paper in not mentioning my earlier work, create a scientific fraud? Their paper as published creates a false belief that their description represents an original discovery and presentation, when it is not, because not only were they aware of its prior publication, but they also chose to ignore the published use of Wollumbinia in other peer reviewed scientific works, its use by government legislation support databases since its publication back in 2007, but also its widespread use in the most authoritative comprehensive guide to the Australian Reptilia currently available (Wilson and Swan, 2008 - A Complete Guide to the Reptiles of Australia [Pp. 46-49]). To fail to mention these other published uses of the name Wollumbinia as well, only compounds their deception in my opinion. Their defense that the peer review system prevented them from any mention of my earlier work is the best reason I have heard in years for being justifiably cautious in blindly accepting the peer-review system as the all-powerful protector of scientific quality control in publication. Were like-minded colleagues of Thomson and Georges the so-called peer reviewers of their article? In a recent communication to me from Georges over this matter, he had the hide to conclude his pathetic defence in renaming the latisternum Group, by pointing out that common useage will eventually demonstrate which name shall preval. Are we going to see a repeat of the 1980s and 1990s where certain species earlier proposed by Wells and Wellington were in effect over-written with new names, and then those names were in effect 'protected' by Editorial and Peer Reviewer colleagues of the describers in the forlorn hope that they would eventually be able to invoke the plenary powers of the ICZN and have the junior names placed on the register as valid over the earlier names 'to maintain stability' - the kind of 'stability' that comes through the selective destruction of the only really objective basis of the Code - PRIORITY. That all of these acts of pseudoscientific bastardry have failed to date to overthrow the Wells and Wellington names was more the result of a handfull of honest and objective herpetologists and Commissioners who chose to refrain from such unethical behaviour.

I have described nmerous new taxa over the last 25 years. Go ahead Thomson and Georges, and rename everything that I have named. Invent whatever fantasy of unavailability you like to justify your actions. Get all your mates to sqeeze poor hapless students and lapdog colleagues to only use the 'acceptable' names, so as to beef up your common-useage ploy in the required tme. In time, who knows, you may have even been able to finally nobble the Commission itself by offering to become Commissioners to 'help' sort out the mess. And after you have successfully stolen all of MY intellectual property, you guys can then start on the rest of the worlds's taxonomists' work. That should keep you going for quite a long time indeed. But please, don't stop there. How about creating your very own Code to set in place forever your very own versions of Taxonomic Truth - along with the nazi revisionist's view that the Jews weren't gassed etc etc.

Well, Thomson and Georges should get this clear. I am continuing to publish the Australian Biodiversity Record - and there are going to be many taxonomic changes indeed flowing from my broken down old keyboard over the next few months. Next year the ABR is going Electronic but it will still be printed on paper as well. I will however, be expanding it dramatically to publish taxonomic and nomenclatural works from all Groups, and from anyone, anywhere in the world. The world of science may ultimately owe Thomson and Georges a great debt of thanks for encouraging me to help others have an outlet for works that the taste police in taxonomy can't suppress.

Richard Wells

• • Richard, not even worth replying to why do you bother. Scott Thomson 9:04 30 May 2009.

• • • Richard, I'm vaguely familiar with your work and how long you have been a taxonomist. I've also been made aware of your contributions, the size of your collections, and your connections within the scientific and taxonomic community. I've always been a firm believer that within that said community, the aim is not to attack the individual if there is a disagreement on publications, but their work. I am actually rather ashamed to see that you have forgotten this and have launched your personal vendetta and have continued to defame these scientists' characters. This is not how a scientist with 50 years of experience should retaliate by any means. I find several parts of your comment childish and low, coming from someone with nothing more than wounded pride in having been dismounted from their high horse. Let the science speak for itself, this isn't a competition for fame and glory, but moreso to ensure that quality overcomes quantity in the description of these species.

Perhaps you should check your attitude at the door and take into consideration how these low blows reflect upon you as a person and as a senior taxonomist. I don't find any validity, and I'm sure that others agree, in your defense of your work being based solely on blaming Thomson and Georges for completing a work that predates the release of yours. I have read both, and see no resemblance or any plagiarism between the two papers, so perhaps before crying "theft of intellectual property", you may take that into consideration.

Nathaly Baggi

• To Richard, Scott & Nathaly,
  

Richard: I can understand you being bitter, but it does not do your cause any good to express yourself in that manner - so please keep to the facts. Actually, without having read your work in any detail, I suspect that you are a taxonomist of quite poor quality, but that is not the point here. The real issue goes beyond you, but right to the heart of corporate taxonomic "politics", and I believe that your rights may be being denied. In my opinion, even if your taxonomic work is of poor quality, it cannot and must not be ignored. There are two issues: (1) availability of nomenclatural acts; and (2) "scientific content". Some people seem to be going out of their way to try to prove that your nomenclatural acts (names) are unavailable, by trying to show your journal (ABR) to be "bogus". Regrettably, I happen to know that a prominent journal editor and ICZN commissioner has been trying to do just that. I think it is clear that the unavailability of your names cannot be conclusively demonstrated, so you ought to be given the benefit of the doubt here. Your publications ought not to be put under such ridiculously high levels of scrutiny.
Scott & Nathaly: In my opinion, you ought to (1) accept that Wells' names have priority, when it is as clear as it would be in any other case; and (2) most importantly, you must not ignore Wells' publications, even if his names aren't valid/available, because his publications are at least published works with a scientific content. Instead, by all means CRITICISE Wells' publications on a scientific level. Criticise, but do not ignore. If the published works of people like Wells are ignored, then where will it end? Who will be ignored next? Will we get taxonomic factions all publishing on a subject and ignoring the work of the other factions? Will each faction have their own set of names for taxa? I will also mention that I find all this particularly distasteful because there are "professional" taxonomists whose work is also of poor quality, but they survive due to corporate backing, and they can get quite obstructive to people not only like Wells, but also others who could make a valuable contribution to taxonomy.
Stephen Thorpe Stho002 03:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Stephen,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but what you are suggesting when you say '...most importantly, you must not ignore Wells' publications, even if his names aren't valid/available, because his publications are at least published works with a scientific content...' that you are in fact saying that an invalid and unavailable paper should be rendered on equal ground with a paper that has abided by the code of the ICZN and in turn get recognition as such. This would cause the uproar that you mention later in your comment, with people ignoring each others work and going around it. The code was set in place to avoid these situations, forcing those that comply to be recognized, regardless of them being of superior or inferior quality. The peer review is in place to make sure that the paper is in the very least legible and comprehensible, and that it's not a total pile of mumbo-jumbo that no one can understand. There are guidelines set in place here to protect the work of taxonomists that have been blatantly ignored and skirted, and I honestly don't see why you continue to defend something that has been deliberately attempted to be squeezed through a loop hole. A work that has been expedited in order to better serve the needs of one person instead of the needs of the community is a work that -should- be ignored. I am fairly certain, though, that in this case it has not been ignored, but instead relegated to what it should have received in the first place.

I am fairly certain that you would agree that if a blogger posted a description of a taxon all over the internet, you would not think to yourself that this is on the same level as someone who has published in a recognized scientific journal. Even if the description was superb, it would still not have followed the code set in place to make sure the work is recognized. There will always be those who are better off perhaps not describing taxa, and find their specialty to be in another area. Their descriptions will be of course sub-par, but if the code is met and the work is made available, it leaves nothing for anyone to complain about.

Nathaly Baggi

• • Nathaly

You are mistaken. Firstly, I am certain that Well's names cannot be proved to be unavailable. The journal ABR cannot be proved not to have been published in accordance with the (rather vague) rules of the Code governing PAPER publication of taxonomic names, whereby all that is required is for multiple identical hard copies to be made and "obtainable". The electronic version can be considered secondary, and it provides the contact details for obtaining a hard copy. Wells' names are here to stay, so stop trying to disprove them, and just concentrate on their validity, i.e., synonymise them if they don't have priority, but USE them if they do have priority. If we started subjecting all publications to these ridiculously high levels of scrutiny, I wonder what we might find? Just give Wells the benefit of the doubt, and treat his names as available names. Wollumbinia has priority over Myuchelys, and is the valid name. And note that Wells was correct that it represents a new genus. His taxonomic concept is exactly the same as that of Thomson & Georges, but pre-dates them by 2 years!
Secondly, peer review rarely actually works - I have seen all sorts of blunders get through even 2 authors, 2 reviewers and an editor, in one case! There is a continuum of quality even with peer review, and the low end is pretty bad. If someone goes to the trouble of creating a durable publication, like Wells has, then it ought to be considered, peer review or no, in any subsequent publication on the same topic. This is particularly important when available taxonomic names are involved. The only reason not to consider the work of a blogger as a publication is that it typically doesn't last as a permanent record. But even then, I would cite a blogger if they posted a good new idea, rather than claiming the idea as my own! The quality of Well's work is a moot point. On the one hand, he correctly recognised Wollumbinia as representing a new genus, as I have already said, and Thomson & Georges don't disagree with that, they just claim it as their own idea. Even Z.-q. Z. admits that Thomson & Georges paper ought not to have been accepted for Zootaxa in the present form, without any mention of Wollumbinia. On the other hand, if Wells' work is poor, then others have the opportunity to criticise it and point out the mistakes. What I take exception to is the branding of someone as "not worth taking seriously". I have seen clear cases of papers being rejected by peer review purely on the grounds of territoriality. It is especially difficult for an independent taxonomist like Wells to get his work past peer review, regardless of how good it might be. There are some very fine lines here, but I am somewhat uneasy about how Wells and some others are being treated by the "corporate sector". I think the latter are creating the problems, or at least making them worse. QUESTION: why should we ignore Wollumbinia in favour of Myuchelys??? Stho002 06:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore:

1. Waging a war with people like Wells is unlikely to achieve anything constructive. For example, in response to similar criticism, Hoser has recently created his own journal (Australasian journal of herpetology) which IS recognised by the National Library of Australia, etc., so there is no doubt at all that his names are available, see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27Australasian+journal+of+herpetology%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-nz&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
2. Analogy: it is generally accepted that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man be convicted. Sure we don't want to have to bother taking into account work of poor quality, but it is better to do so than to risk excluding anyone who can make a genuine contribution. It is the price we pay for a free and just society. It may be a pain, but the alternative is unspeakable! Quality is a continuum, so where do we draw the line? Who will we ignore next? The reality of peer review is that it can very easily be abused, in order to exclude whoever you like. These days, professional taxonomists are valued by their corporate employers more on how much $$$ they bring in, rather than on the quality of their work. Their work passes quickly through peer review based on who they are, rather than based on the work itself. I'm not saying it is always like this, but it is rife, and increasingly so in these tough economic times. To quote a friend, it is "survival of the most obnoxious" in corporate taxonomy these days. Stho002 07:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nathaly,

I am very sorry to have so disappointed you with my views at the actions of Thomson and Georges. But I do think you are being a little biased in your response (and nothing personal you understand).

"I've always been a firm believer that within that said community, the aim is not to attack the individual if there is a disagreement on publications, but their work".

Well, so have I Nathaly. However, I suggest you direct your plea on this attitude to Georges. Contrary to Thomson's assertion above that I had a grudge against Georges and this played a part in the publication of the new genus Wollumbinia, I can state openly and without any fear at all, that this was certainly NOT the case. Although I periodically have been made aware of Georges' verbal abuse to my colleagues in regards to my work AND my character (most recently at the Brisbane Turtle Conference), I actually never made the slightest criticism of Georges the Man other than a deserved concern that he once promised to send me his reprints many years ago and he did not (but what's new about that). In fact I thought that Georges appeared to be a dedicated, productive and hard-working biologist (admittedly more a physiologist than a taxonomist), and that he seemed to have produced some very interesting work. His actions with Thomson in Zootaxa were a bit of a shock to me, for I must admit that despite one of his colleagues' warning me to beware of dealing with both Thomson and Georges - I always had a fair view of both of them until this fiasco.

" I am actually rather ashamed to see that you have forgotten this and have launched your personal vendetta and have continued to defame these scientists' characters".

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort, so pleased don't feel ashamed for me - save it for those who cosset their kind of behaviour. And let me say here that there is nothing at all personal in this - at least not from me. It they who defame themselves by their actions in my opinion.

"I find several parts of your comment childish and low, coming from someone with nothing more than wounded pride in having been dismounted from their high horse."

Actually, I find your comment rather childish, and peculiarly one-sided. And, for you information, I have something far more substantial as a basis for my comments than mere wounded pride as you call it. In my opinion what they have done threatens the very heart of zoological classification - it creates instability be usurping the objective basis of priority in the Code for the subjective basis of a stability based on contrived common-usage through the application of power and authority. That you think I have been "dismounted from [my] high horse" shows how little you really do know about me.

"This is not how a scientist with 50 years of experience should retaliate by any means."

Yes, I couldn't agree more. You've seen nothing yet. I've got plenty more retaliating to do over their Zootaxa stunt.

"Let the science speak for itself, this isn't a competition for fame and glory..."

Again I couldn't agree more, so I repeat, direct this comment to Thomson and Georges also. That I of all people might have received any fame or glory in herpetology in Australia is a joke. In any other country I would have been welcomed and honoured for my efforts in herpetology, but in Australia - for the most part - I have been treated like scum. I did nothing other than love field herpetology and of course wanting to learn. I donated thousands of specimens collected at my own expence, pain and hardship over many years, to Museums and Universities of all places so that PROFESSIONALS could advance their careers and knowledge. In the process of surveying a continent for reptiles I was nearly killed by snakebites, car accidents and cliff-falls, and starved myself too many times to recall - and willingly. But for what? A big high horse to prance around on perhaps? Certainly not for some fat paycheck every week. And certainly not for even a single letter of thanks from a museum or university - nothing. Long before I published anything, so-called professionals even conspired with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service to order the seizure of my preserved reptile specimen collection and hand it over to the Australian Museum -"because it was just too valuable to be in the hands of an amateur". When I tried to examine specimens in the collection of the Australian Museum in the early 1980s for my own researches I was constantly frustrated and obstructed in my efforts to the point where it became totally impossible. And why was this happening I asked?..."because the collections were reserved for studies by University of Sydney researchers" I was told by Museum staff. When I complained that numerous species in Australia were undescribed or were likely misnamed, I was ignored time and time again - or was I? Play the ball and not the man eh Nathaly, well tell that to those who called me a "Terrorist in Taxonomy", the "Aids of Zooology" or any of the other multitude of deprecating terms when I had the audacity to say what I believed had to be said with Ross Wellington back in 1984 and 1985. Or why not criticise those who studied my activities so intensely that huge files were collected on my every move and action that would do the KGB proud? And to those who repeatedly contacted my employers so that I would be denied work or dismissed from employment you will say nothing? And what of their interference with my collecting permits with Wildlife Authorities so that permits were not renewed? And after I published, what about criticising their attempts to remove my publications from libraries? What about when my manuscripts were stolen from my office and my files ransacked? I have said very little over the years over the way I have been treated, largely because I thought that it just wasn't worth the trouble and also because I was partly to blame because I was just too intent on speaking up and actually went past the event-horizon and named taxa myself. But I now know that my silence was a mistake. In any case, it should come as a great joy for some to know that I am finishing off my research articles in herpetology as soon as possible and then when they are all published, herpetologists and herpetology can go to hell as far as I am concerned. I will soon have better things to occupy my closing days with.

"Perhaps you should check your attitude at the door and take into consideration how these low blows reflect upon you as a person and as a senior taxonomist."

My family include the Stuart Kings of Scotland and I am a direct descendant of highland warrior clans. I'll not be checking anything at the door laddy but my enemies and their buggery of the Code.

"theft of intellectual property"...Well, you may take this into consideration - I provided a novel genus group name for the latisternum complex of species. That was, is, and always will be my intellectual property.

Richard Wells

• Let it be a warning to all the enthusiastic amateurs out there, learned the hard way by Wells, myself, and others, not to expect any thanks from the professional taxonomic community for unpaid work in the area of taxonomy/collection building. If you are going to do such unpaid work, then do it because you enjoy it, and in the hope that it may make a constructive contribution to knowledge, but don't expect due aknowledgement or gratitude. You will get it from some people in the professional community, but, perhaps inevitably, you will acquire enemies, and the powers that be will always back them over you. I worked unpaid at an institution on and off for nearly a decade, donated thousands of specimens, sorted and identified countless thousands. Two people at that institution made numerous attempts to have me removed. One of them finally succeeded, but only after (1) having recently gained promotion; and (2) even then having to go over the head of her immediate boss (while he was on holiday!) to a senior manager, and somehow managed to get him to make a decision right there and then, without consultation with other involved parties. Once a senior manager makes a decision, it is impossible to get them to backtrack, particularly when that manager's wife is a strong supporter of the person who wanted me removed! The latter person had insisted that I sign an agreement restricting me in all sorts of ridiculous ways, including times of access. After nearly a decade of unpaid service, I was basically thrown out for being there at 5:30pm when I should have left at 5pm! Stho002 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I have closed your nomination as not promoted. Many felt that you need more experience in contributing towards the project in order to fully understand its procedure and process. Why not try again in a few months? We definitely need your expert views on sideneck turtles and other taxon (particularly in this project comparing to Wikipedia). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I shall look into it again then, unfortunately I cannot edit at the moment though, its not currently possible for me to do so. Yes the wikispecies pages are grossly out of date but I cannot access them. 96.233.249.22 03:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry above by me forgot to login as I am not on my usual computer. Faendalimas (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Format!

we have different format to Wikipedia! Please do it like this: Elseya lavarackorum --Stho002 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

1. kk Faendalimas (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)