![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play. The genus name Wollumbinia was erected by Wells, 2007, [1] however, some recent publications have claimed that this paper is in breach of the ICZN code defining a valid publication, ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D. [2] [3] If this is correct, then the name should not be used. [2] [3] [4] Since the PDF version of the Wollumbinia paper clearly states that it is secondary to a paper version which is available upon request (not printed on request, but available on request), [1] Wells' name Wollumbinia would appear to have been published in full compliance with ICZN Article 8 and ICZN Article 9. There is no proof in any published source that no original printed run of the article was made available in 2007, and the PDF clearly states that it was. [1] Therefore, it must be given the benefit of any doubt, by the Principle of charity. The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is "science" or just "politics", and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon. The genus encompassing these species was named Myuchelys by Thomson and Georges, 2009 [5].
[I was asked to contribute here by Faendalimas.] I have no knowledge of the background to the two genus names in question. There are, however, some obvious problems with the article's current text. Several statements are unsourced or improperly sourced, and editorial opinions and recommendations are given. I don't think there can be any justification for including editorialising like "The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play" or leading statements like "The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is 'science' or just 'politics', and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon". We can only repeat or report what the sources say. In this case, we can state for instance that Georges and Thomson (2010) concluded that Wells' publication did not fulfil the criteria for publication under the ICZN, and that they disputed whether "W. dorsei" warranted recognition as a separate species. I have seen similar cases elsewhere, with statements like "this constitutes a valid publication under the ICZN[1]", where the citation is to the ICZN itself (which naturally doesn't mention the case in question) – this is to my mind obviously unacceptable. On less contentious issues, how many species are there in the genus? We learn that the "genus currently contains five [...] species", but only four are listed. I would also recommend removing the Wikispecies link until it provides complementary information, rather than a blank contradiction. External links are meant to be a service to the reader, which that link isn't at the moment (no. 2 in WP:ELNO). -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Scott Thomson = Faendalimas - You were the one suggesting that the ISSN was bogus and hence creating a façade that it made Wollumbinia invalid, not I. I wasn't using an ISSN no. to validate the publication either. I was merely pointing out that your assertion about the ISSN was a lie, that the Journal does exist as a hard copy print medium Journal and does contain statements of purpose - all of which make it clear that your publication of the later name Myuchelys is not the valid name and merely a junior synonym. Hal Cogger does believe the Journal exists and has used Wollumbinia, I spoke to him personally. I sent your comment re the ISSN to Richard to see what his response was - provided the following.
"Myuchelys vs Wollumbinia
Ross Wellington has just asked my opinion on claims made by by Scott Thomson on a Wikipedia page that he controls. Ross had been trying to set the record straight on the Page and Thomson et al keep changing it back to their rant. Normally I wouldn't bother with such a Wikipedia issue, but I thought I'd post his query below with my answer...I intend publishing a revision on Australia's freshwater turtles soon and this will include a number of changes to the classification promoted by Georges and Thomson and their lap-dogs both here and abroad, so for now....
Given the reprehensible manner in which Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier published and legitimately described genus Wollumbinia, I am getting more than a little fed-up with both of these clowns. As you well know, I don't bother thinking about their work unless I feel like vomiting. But Scott Thomson has gone way too far with his insulting and demonstrably incorrect statement that the ABR has a fake ISSN on it and that the works do not constitute Available publications under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The National Library of Australia did actually issue me with an ISSN for the Australian Biodiversity Record prior to me first publishing it, and every issue since has had that ISSN number on the publication as the NAL instructed. And I have a letter in my files from the National Library of Australia that proves it, so Thomson can suck that one up and choke on it for all I care. From what I have observed, the only fakery is that in the Wikipedia piece and elsewhere through the constant claims by Georges and Thomson that the genus Wollumbinia is invalid. The ABR has always met the requirements for Availability as a publication under the Code - and I believe that Georges and Thomson know full-well that it has as well. To say otherwise just makes them a couple of bumbling liars in my eyes. But what concerns me even more is the basis for this claim of a faked ISSN. Did either of them actually get this opinion either from, or after communicating with, person/s within the National Library of Australia? How the hell have they reached this conclusion, because they sure as hell never bothered to ask me about it. This is quite a potential problem for Scott Thomson given his rave on Wikipedia - and whoever else supports this opinion actually - because as an ISSN was validly and lawfully acquired by me from the National Library of Australia prior to publishing any issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record, it means that someone is either lying in regards this ISSN matter or the NLA has itself acted incompetently in providing Thomson or his informant with incorrect information regarding it. Another matter, no less concerning, is the additional fact that all issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record have been sent to the National Library of Australia when, or soon after, they were published, YET the library's TROVE database only includes an incomplete record of receipt of my Journal. Although they include the majority of what has been published (contra the claims of Scott Thomson) I also find it more than curious, that some issues were inexplicably NOT added to the library's collection record and they appear to be those where my intellectual property has been either later stolen through the re-descriptive actions of others, or are those that contain new taxa within groups that others have a vested interest in side-stepping - a sort of suppression by omission one might say. Another fact not generally known - but certainly known by herpetologists at the Australian Museum and the Queensland Museum - is that some issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record were clearly dated by Australia Post date stamps as part of the mailing process. And often bulk copies are sent to places like museums and universities and in so doing it is obvious to key workers that they conform to traditional ink-on-paper publications. Yes, I have also made PDFs freely available (over 80,000 have been downloaded that I know of) but they have always been offered as PDFs only after the works were printed on paper. Given the fact that they have been published and distributed to researchers and libraries and countless other recipients as you know, Thomson's claim is just idiotic - Doesn't he bother talking to other researchers in Australia any more? But you know Ross, I think I can be excused for suspecting that there is something not quite right going on here with his erroneous ISSN claim as well (wherever that originated) and I include here the apparent failure of the NAL to include critical components of my work in its database. That said, Thomson may gain some comfort from his claim that it is not in the Australian National Library, but it was sent, so it should have been added to their collection, unless it is laying on a back-log shelf for processing. Who knows? But whether by deliberate intent of an officer within, or through just plain sloppy work at the ANL, this matter suggests to me that the part being played by the Australian National Library is at the very least now becoming enmeshed within the attempted entrenchment of a scientific fraud. Yes, I am of course referring to the pseudo-intellectual wipe that was published in that rag Zootaxa by Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson when they first erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier generic name of Wollumbinia. Of course, as you know, the unethical omission of any mention of my earlier work or its conclusions not only had the effect of creating a false impression of authority on their part but also an illegitimate priority of their conclusions. Through deliberately ignoring my earlier published work in the face of their own prior awareness of it, as well as neglecting even the citation of it, and then in effect over-writing of its conclusions with their own, this must constitute an example of scientific fraud by any reasonable and informed opinion...And there can be no doubt of that at all, and no amount of fake claims about an ISSN or the Availability of the Australian Biodiversity Record to lawfully publish new names in zoology can hide it either..." RW Wells 14 May 2015 20:47:36 +1000
This comment by Richard I think should satisfy your false assertion claims and that of interested readers.
It is quite concerning that even the National Library of Australia is apparently being manipulated by your influential cohorts in Canberra and as you alluded the Commonwealth Government ABRS and AFD are in the sights as well.
You might be interested to know that the IUCN are currently considering aligning their lists with that of the Australian Government.
As for "peer-review" I have no problem with it except when it is portrayed as some form of puritanical standard; a standard presented to the community as beyond reproach and that anything without that perceived status is in some way invalidated! I fully understand that academia use that 'standard' in a way that justifies their position of authority, their employed position in Universities and their grant funded 'gravy train'. Unfortunately, when that process is abused by editors with a vested interest in a particular position and who then condone personal attack, false assertion and scientific misappropriation it demeans not only the vehicle of publication but also the whole peer-review argument thus rendering it redundant. I don't need to get the whole scientific community to change their need for peer-review not at all its just that people outside that publish or perish sphere see it as a joke of a standard, and that it is anything but! Take for example Zootaxa in which you published your replacement name for Wollumbinia in 2009. How can you claim that the article was peer-reviewed to any objective standard? The name Wollumbinia was known generally and was made aware to yourselves prior to publishing Myuchelys. Surely an editor that was not biased or influenced not see the seriousness of usurping someone else's intellectual property. Why was there zero effort to establish the availability by the editor of that Journal regarding Australian Biodiversity Record and allowing you and Georges to present a bibliographic citation that was clearly false and to create a perception of the articles only being available from the author? As for the 'nomenclatural curiosities' of Wells and Wellington 1984/5 you obviously haven't read the various editions of Cogger including the latest (Cogger, 2014) where most of these 'curiosities' are recognized as biological facts/entities ... much to your consternation I'm sure! Quite clearly, you are very angry at having lost your generic names as too is Arthur Georges, but in his case not just because he has lost his desired and all consuming hunt for 'glory' but also his hatred of those naming things he wanted to name. He might also be a little embarrassed by the fact that it was pointed out to the Australian Government that he was practicing poor science (see Wells and Wellington 1992) http://www.calodema.com/freefiles/wells/Wells-JellyBlubbers.pdf R Wellington 11:57 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.64 ( talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Scott, not so it hasn't all been discussed in the past and the mere fact that you have admitted putting in place an 'auto-reject' control 'bot' on this web page to prevent anyone (me specifically) putting a valid and more balanced argument regarding the nomenclatural history of this genus name makes Wikipedia a joke! The fact is, just like Wells and Wellington 1984 and 1985, the article describing Wollumbinia Wells 2007 is a valid publication and does exist and your 2 year later article with Arthur Georges is a blatant attempt at scientific theft. Your control of this page attempting to prevent the truth being more widely known speaks for itself. The fact is Myuchelys as a genus name is a 'dud' and as much as you hate losing your only generic name, the correct name is Wollumbinia and ultimately it will be accepted as such. Meanwhile, control this page and any objective treatment of it and you do nothing more than make a mockery of Wikipedia as a balanced, objective and reliable source of information to the wider community. Sooner or later those running the show will realize you have a biased 'control freak' position and it will be you that gets your version of history flicked off here and a block placed on your contributions. Meanwhile have fun with your transient opportunity in this tiny sphere of control ... GAL
References
gt10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TG09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play. The genus name Wollumbinia was erected by Wells, 2007, [1] however, some recent publications have claimed that this paper is in breach of the ICZN code defining a valid publication, ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D. [2] [3] If this is correct, then the name should not be used. [2] [3] [4] Since the PDF version of the Wollumbinia paper clearly states that it is secondary to a paper version which is available upon request (not printed on request, but available on request), [1] Wells' name Wollumbinia would appear to have been published in full compliance with ICZN Article 8 and ICZN Article 9. There is no proof in any published source that no original printed run of the article was made available in 2007, and the PDF clearly states that it was. [1] Therefore, it must be given the benefit of any doubt, by the Principle of charity. The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is "science" or just "politics", and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon. The genus encompassing these species was named Myuchelys by Thomson and Georges, 2009 [5].
[I was asked to contribute here by Faendalimas.] I have no knowledge of the background to the two genus names in question. There are, however, some obvious problems with the article's current text. Several statements are unsourced or improperly sourced, and editorial opinions and recommendations are given. I don't think there can be any justification for including editorialising like "The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play" or leading statements like "The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is 'science' or just 'politics', and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon". We can only repeat or report what the sources say. In this case, we can state for instance that Georges and Thomson (2010) concluded that Wells' publication did not fulfil the criteria for publication under the ICZN, and that they disputed whether "W. dorsei" warranted recognition as a separate species. I have seen similar cases elsewhere, with statements like "this constitutes a valid publication under the ICZN[1]", where the citation is to the ICZN itself (which naturally doesn't mention the case in question) – this is to my mind obviously unacceptable. On less contentious issues, how many species are there in the genus? We learn that the "genus currently contains five [...] species", but only four are listed. I would also recommend removing the Wikispecies link until it provides complementary information, rather than a blank contradiction. External links are meant to be a service to the reader, which that link isn't at the moment (no. 2 in WP:ELNO). -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Scott Thomson = Faendalimas - You were the one suggesting that the ISSN was bogus and hence creating a façade that it made Wollumbinia invalid, not I. I wasn't using an ISSN no. to validate the publication either. I was merely pointing out that your assertion about the ISSN was a lie, that the Journal does exist as a hard copy print medium Journal and does contain statements of purpose - all of which make it clear that your publication of the later name Myuchelys is not the valid name and merely a junior synonym. Hal Cogger does believe the Journal exists and has used Wollumbinia, I spoke to him personally. I sent your comment re the ISSN to Richard to see what his response was - provided the following.
"Myuchelys vs Wollumbinia
Ross Wellington has just asked my opinion on claims made by by Scott Thomson on a Wikipedia page that he controls. Ross had been trying to set the record straight on the Page and Thomson et al keep changing it back to their rant. Normally I wouldn't bother with such a Wikipedia issue, but I thought I'd post his query below with my answer...I intend publishing a revision on Australia's freshwater turtles soon and this will include a number of changes to the classification promoted by Georges and Thomson and their lap-dogs both here and abroad, so for now....
Given the reprehensible manner in which Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier published and legitimately described genus Wollumbinia, I am getting more than a little fed-up with both of these clowns. As you well know, I don't bother thinking about their work unless I feel like vomiting. But Scott Thomson has gone way too far with his insulting and demonstrably incorrect statement that the ABR has a fake ISSN on it and that the works do not constitute Available publications under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The National Library of Australia did actually issue me with an ISSN for the Australian Biodiversity Record prior to me first publishing it, and every issue since has had that ISSN number on the publication as the NAL instructed. And I have a letter in my files from the National Library of Australia that proves it, so Thomson can suck that one up and choke on it for all I care. From what I have observed, the only fakery is that in the Wikipedia piece and elsewhere through the constant claims by Georges and Thomson that the genus Wollumbinia is invalid. The ABR has always met the requirements for Availability as a publication under the Code - and I believe that Georges and Thomson know full-well that it has as well. To say otherwise just makes them a couple of bumbling liars in my eyes. But what concerns me even more is the basis for this claim of a faked ISSN. Did either of them actually get this opinion either from, or after communicating with, person/s within the National Library of Australia? How the hell have they reached this conclusion, because they sure as hell never bothered to ask me about it. This is quite a potential problem for Scott Thomson given his rave on Wikipedia - and whoever else supports this opinion actually - because as an ISSN was validly and lawfully acquired by me from the National Library of Australia prior to publishing any issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record, it means that someone is either lying in regards this ISSN matter or the NLA has itself acted incompetently in providing Thomson or his informant with incorrect information regarding it. Another matter, no less concerning, is the additional fact that all issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record have been sent to the National Library of Australia when, or soon after, they were published, YET the library's TROVE database only includes an incomplete record of receipt of my Journal. Although they include the majority of what has been published (contra the claims of Scott Thomson) I also find it more than curious, that some issues were inexplicably NOT added to the library's collection record and they appear to be those where my intellectual property has been either later stolen through the re-descriptive actions of others, or are those that contain new taxa within groups that others have a vested interest in side-stepping - a sort of suppression by omission one might say. Another fact not generally known - but certainly known by herpetologists at the Australian Museum and the Queensland Museum - is that some issues of the Australian Biodiversity Record were clearly dated by Australia Post date stamps as part of the mailing process. And often bulk copies are sent to places like museums and universities and in so doing it is obvious to key workers that they conform to traditional ink-on-paper publications. Yes, I have also made PDFs freely available (over 80,000 have been downloaded that I know of) but they have always been offered as PDFs only after the works were printed on paper. Given the fact that they have been published and distributed to researchers and libraries and countless other recipients as you know, Thomson's claim is just idiotic - Doesn't he bother talking to other researchers in Australia any more? But you know Ross, I think I can be excused for suspecting that there is something not quite right going on here with his erroneous ISSN claim as well (wherever that originated) and I include here the apparent failure of the NAL to include critical components of my work in its database. That said, Thomson may gain some comfort from his claim that it is not in the Australian National Library, but it was sent, so it should have been added to their collection, unless it is laying on a back-log shelf for processing. Who knows? But whether by deliberate intent of an officer within, or through just plain sloppy work at the ANL, this matter suggests to me that the part being played by the Australian National Library is at the very least now becoming enmeshed within the attempted entrenchment of a scientific fraud. Yes, I am of course referring to the pseudo-intellectual wipe that was published in that rag Zootaxa by Arthur Georges and Scott Thomson when they first erected the genus Myuchelys over my earlier generic name of Wollumbinia. Of course, as you know, the unethical omission of any mention of my earlier work or its conclusions not only had the effect of creating a false impression of authority on their part but also an illegitimate priority of their conclusions. Through deliberately ignoring my earlier published work in the face of their own prior awareness of it, as well as neglecting even the citation of it, and then in effect over-writing of its conclusions with their own, this must constitute an example of scientific fraud by any reasonable and informed opinion...And there can be no doubt of that at all, and no amount of fake claims about an ISSN or the Availability of the Australian Biodiversity Record to lawfully publish new names in zoology can hide it either..." RW Wells 14 May 2015 20:47:36 +1000
This comment by Richard I think should satisfy your false assertion claims and that of interested readers.
It is quite concerning that even the National Library of Australia is apparently being manipulated by your influential cohorts in Canberra and as you alluded the Commonwealth Government ABRS and AFD are in the sights as well.
You might be interested to know that the IUCN are currently considering aligning their lists with that of the Australian Government.
As for "peer-review" I have no problem with it except when it is portrayed as some form of puritanical standard; a standard presented to the community as beyond reproach and that anything without that perceived status is in some way invalidated! I fully understand that academia use that 'standard' in a way that justifies their position of authority, their employed position in Universities and their grant funded 'gravy train'. Unfortunately, when that process is abused by editors with a vested interest in a particular position and who then condone personal attack, false assertion and scientific misappropriation it demeans not only the vehicle of publication but also the whole peer-review argument thus rendering it redundant. I don't need to get the whole scientific community to change their need for peer-review not at all its just that people outside that publish or perish sphere see it as a joke of a standard, and that it is anything but! Take for example Zootaxa in which you published your replacement name for Wollumbinia in 2009. How can you claim that the article was peer-reviewed to any objective standard? The name Wollumbinia was known generally and was made aware to yourselves prior to publishing Myuchelys. Surely an editor that was not biased or influenced not see the seriousness of usurping someone else's intellectual property. Why was there zero effort to establish the availability by the editor of that Journal regarding Australian Biodiversity Record and allowing you and Georges to present a bibliographic citation that was clearly false and to create a perception of the articles only being available from the author? As for the 'nomenclatural curiosities' of Wells and Wellington 1984/5 you obviously haven't read the various editions of Cogger including the latest (Cogger, 2014) where most of these 'curiosities' are recognized as biological facts/entities ... much to your consternation I'm sure! Quite clearly, you are very angry at having lost your generic names as too is Arthur Georges, but in his case not just because he has lost his desired and all consuming hunt for 'glory' but also his hatred of those naming things he wanted to name. He might also be a little embarrassed by the fact that it was pointed out to the Australian Government that he was practicing poor science (see Wells and Wellington 1992) http://www.calodema.com/freefiles/wells/Wells-JellyBlubbers.pdf R Wellington 11:57 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.64 ( talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Scott, not so it hasn't all been discussed in the past and the mere fact that you have admitted putting in place an 'auto-reject' control 'bot' on this web page to prevent anyone (me specifically) putting a valid and more balanced argument regarding the nomenclatural history of this genus name makes Wikipedia a joke! The fact is, just like Wells and Wellington 1984 and 1985, the article describing Wollumbinia Wells 2007 is a valid publication and does exist and your 2 year later article with Arthur Georges is a blatant attempt at scientific theft. Your control of this page attempting to prevent the truth being more widely known speaks for itself. The fact is Myuchelys as a genus name is a 'dud' and as much as you hate losing your only generic name, the correct name is Wollumbinia and ultimately it will be accepted as such. Meanwhile, control this page and any objective treatment of it and you do nothing more than make a mockery of Wikipedia as a balanced, objective and reliable source of information to the wider community. Sooner or later those running the show will realize you have a biased 'control freak' position and it will be you that gets your version of history flicked off here and a block placed on your contributions. Meanwhile have fun with your transient opportunity in this tiny sphere of control ... GAL
References
gt10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TG09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).