Ray,

Thank you for supposedly sending me a bundle of journals and papers - which I HAVE NOT RECEIVED.

You can choose to believe me or not, but at this stage I choose not to believe you.

As for emails being sent to me bouncing, well I must admit that this does happen - mainly because I receive around 1000 a week, and if someone sends me something taking up hundreds of meg then my mailbox may reject it. Although I would appreciate an email of any article, you know as well as I do, that this is not what I require. I am after an original issue of your publication that describes the new Chondropython. I have already read the article - obtained as a copy from your webpage from one of my colleagues - because I was unable to access your "smuggled.com" site. From that copy I can see that it conforms to the Code in its structural content. However, it is becoming clear to me that this new name may not constitute an Available Name, as the work it appears in, may not constitute a publication in the sense of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Prove me wrong Ray by sending me an original. I don't care one iota about the anonymous one hundred others that have supposedly got one - I am just saying that I am still to see one.

As for the weigeli paper, it was formally published in the meaning of the Code - permanently printed (on gloss paper too), and copies sent to a number of libraries. You are quite correct though that it eventually became quite hard to get, because copies in most of the libraries were discarded or removed under advice from various persons. For instance the copy in the NSW NPWS library was removed, along with all the Australian Journal of Herpetology issues (a complete set) after the suppressionist John Barker told Gwen the librarian that the works had been suppressed and were not to be used. Similarly, copies at Macquarie University were removed as a result of a request from one of the lecturers in the School of Biological Science (name known), and the same for Sydney University. This later case was even more interesting. After I noticed that the works were no longer present in the Badham Library collection, I formally requested an explanation from the librarian. She told me that under instruction from a lecturer in the School of Zoology (Bill Dawbin was named as the one responsible) the works were to be removed from the collection. I complained to the head of the Student's Union about this Suppression, who then advised the library that unless the articles were restored, they would take the matter up with the Vice Chancellor's Office AND the media. The articles reappeared in the library, but were eventually removed again for extended periods, but the weigeli paper was removed permanently. There are only a handful of original copies of the weigeli paper left in libraries. Most copies in other hands as you say are photocopies - and these mostly originate with an original held in a major public library. I understand that a biologist in Germany has passed on one such photocopy to a forensic scientist in the German Police to ascertain whether it has been derived from such a permanently printed work. I am quite confident that it will pass such a test, but I am not so sure how your article will stack up to such examination should the same tactics be used against your work as they are doing to mine.

Other matters or implications of your post on OzHerp will be ignored at this time, because I have to go to the toilet.



Richard Wells

[ Show Entire Thread ]