Sorry Richard, but that's the facts.

This by any reasonable interpretation of the code means that your papers are not validly published under the ICZN's code.

You should in my view try again and re-read the code first.

Until then, the names in those papers are probably nomen nudem.

While I've got you (Richard) cornered, by the way, I sent ANOTHER original of the Pythons paper newsletter to Bill Bennett after his suggestion last week and I assume it is now sitting at his house. Contact him direct on that and if he hasn't got it, allow another few days.

For your further information, the original newsletter was poor quality as you said in your e-mail and hence it was not deemed published until I got a copy of the master file for the newsletter and myself produced about 200 quality originals of which about 100 were sent out immediately and the rest are sitting in a pile on a shelf.

The main libraries and institutions were sent copies and many if not most had already acknowledged receipt of them before your series of posts and e-mails claiming they hadn't beens sent them.

That also explains the difference in dates between Julia Carr's alleged publiction date and the later date that I announced publication on Kingsnake and other places - it was only announced by me when publication under the ICZN rules was confirmed.

A similar situation actually happened with one of the Monitor Magazines I produced, in that case delaying delivery by a week or two, and so far, no grievances have been raised in terms of that publication.

The dissapointing part of the exercise from my view is that a smaller paper (the one in the newsletter) was published to specifically deflect your claims that I was monopolizing taxa and also to comply with the time limitations statements in the ICZN's rules - all of whichis spelt out in the paper which is seems neither you or other (adverse) critics have actually read.

ALL THE BEST

Five New Australian Pythons Formally Named

[ Show Entire Thread ]