Pay and describe it

Do not forget, my friends, that many taxa described at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries bear the names of Rothschild, Queen Victoria, Staudinger, Grand Duke Romanov.

There is no" true "or" untrue " science, science is one and it is impossible to offend it, unlike a person. It was about the fact that naming taxa for money is contrary to professional ethics, which for some reason is listed in the same paragraph as the Code. Next, I propose to insert the item "I have described or am going to describe taxa for money": to judge "if I were a taxonomist, I would definitely sell names" is one thing, but it is interesting to know what the state of affairs is in reality. And one more point: "Personally, I would not give names to taxa for money."

Do not forget, my friends, that many taxa described at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries bear the names of Rothschild, Queen Victoria, Staudinger, Grand Duke Romanov.

Ah, the last two were outstanding lepidopterists, and Queen Victoria-I doubt she paid the taxonomist for that name) I don't know the story about Rothschild.

I agree - the questions are not entirely correct. It would be more correct to name the survey itself, for example: "taxon names for money". And so it turns out - describe the taxon and pay someone else for it. Thank God they don't charge taxes for this yet. Then - "pay, and I'll describe" - super!

This post was edited by Entalex - 27.01.2008 15: 20

With such questions, I would vote for the 2nd option. But 3-4-th (without complexes) are formulated too harshly. I am for "within the codes and [my own] conscience." + "I didn't describe it, but what the hell is wrong? In this case, I will solve the issues that arise without taking into account the contempt of money." That is, if there is a specific epithet, then it is given. If not, there may be different ways to invent it. Including the sale of the right of baptism.

I have never described the species before, so I can't say how much work it is, but I think it's a big one.. Depending on this, I would choose a more precise one.. If it's a cheap thing to do, then of course you can't charge money for it, at least not much, but I doubt it's that simple.. If we talk about ourselves.. well, I would definitely not give a dozen names to anyone, because a good show-off is more expensive than money

Ah, the last two were outstanding lepidopterists, and Queen Victoria-I doubt she paid the taxonomist for that name) I don't know the story about Rothschild.

Rothschild financed the expeditions of Alfred Russel Wallace.

I agree - the questions are not entirely correct. It would be more correct to name the survey itself, for example: "taxon names for money". And so it turns out - describe the taxon and pay someone else for it. Thank God they don't charge taxes for this yet. Then - "pay, and I'll describe" - super!

Incorrect questions?
Make comments and make corrections.

The trouble with us is that we all have a lot of pop*** * t. Everyone yells from their niche in the bird market. And when it comes down to it - head in the shoulders and "fat body in the cliffs".
Therefore, if you and others are not satisfied with the wording of the questions (and this is normal), then create your own survey.

What's a scoop holdover? Innitiativas are still not welcome here. The same bodyguard as with Latin. There are plenty of critics, but they don't want to make the necessary additions themselves.
Banal babbling - at the entrance with beer. HERE, PROBABLY, YOU NEED TO ADHERE TO OTHER RULES - THERE IS A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW - CALMLY STATE AND ARGUE.

And then as small children, e-my.

Pasha, ay-ay-ay!

This post was edited by Bolivar - 28.01.2008 22: 39

Ah, the last two were outstanding lepidopterists, and Queen Victoria-I doubt she paid the taxonomist for that name) I don't know the story about Rothschild.

Ornithoptera rothschildi (Kenrick, 1911 ) - the most famous "history"

Ornithoptera rothschildi (Kenrick, 1911 ) - the most famous "history"

Der erste Forscher, der dieser Art begegnete, war der Entomologe Carl Brenders Pratt. Die erste Beschreibung stammt aus dem Jahre 1911 von George H. Kenrick. Er wurde nach dem britischen Adeligen und Zoologen Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2. Baron Rothschild benannt, der viele Expeditionen nach Neuguinea und Papua finanzierte.(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithoptera_rothschildi). What does the payment for "baptism"have to do with it?

can I speak Russian?

Ah, the last two were outstanding lepidopterists, and Queen Victoria-I doubt she paid the taxonomist for that name) I don't know the story about Rothschild.

By the way, Rothschild was a wonderful expert on fleas. On his own money, he organized expeditions around the world and collected the LARGEST COLLECTION OF FLEAS in the world.

can I speak Russian?

"The first researcher to meet this species was entomologist Carl Branders Pratt. The first description comes from 1911 by George H. Kenrick. He became after the British aristocrat and zoologist Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild named, who financed many expeditions after New Guinea and Papuan."

Something like this

Incorrect questions?
Make comments and make corrections.

The trouble with us is that we all have a lot of pop*** * t. Everyone yells from their niche in the bird market. And when it comes down to it - head in the shoulders and "fat body in the cliffs".
Therefore, if you and others are not satisfied with the wording of the questions (and this is normal), then create your own survey.

What's a scoop holdover? Innitiativas are still not welcome here. The same bodyguard as with Latin. There are plenty of critics, but they don't want to make the necessary additions themselves.
Banal babbling - at the entrance with beer. HERE, PROBABLY, YOU NEED TO ADHERE TO OTHER RULES - THERE IS A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW - CALMLY STATE AND ARGUE.

And then as small children, e-my.

You needn't get hot in my opinion. For example, I didn't understand what you want to ask from the question either. At first I thought that it was like: "pay me money and take the material I collected that contains samples of a new species and describe it to your heart's content", then I thought that this hardly ever happens. You probably meant, "provide financial support and I'll name the species after you," or in short, " pay and I'll name the species after you."
It would be nice if you give a few examples from history, then it will be clearer "what is good and what is bad".
But I understand your interest.

Der erste Forscher, der dieser Art begegnete, war der Entomologe Carl Brenders Pratt. Die erste Beschreibung stammt aus dem Jahre 1911 von George H. Kenrick. Er wurde nach dem britischen Adeligen und Zoologen Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2. Baron Rothschild benannt, der viele Expeditionen nach Neuguinea und Papua finanzierte.(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithoptera_rothschildi). What does the payment for "baptism"have to do with it?

Vielen Dank!
Sie haben die Situation für uns aufgeklärt.

Vielen Dank!
Sie haben die Situation für uns aufgeklärt.

Nichts zu danken.

  
Banal babbling - at the entrance with beer.

That's why I appreciate this resource. And purely "scientific discussions" can be conducted without a nickname.

I'm sorry, it was a little harsh.
I want to say that the value of such a resource (IMHO) is precisely in informal communication. Under our masks (nicknames), we are all equal.
If you limit yourself to the following topics: help with the definition/literature/consult, then it is more logical not to use nicknames.

Nichts zu danken.

Die Freunde! Sie wissen die Sprache Heine und Goethe schön. Aber Sie sprechen russisch!

Gentlemen, have mercy! If I can at least read English, I can't read German either.

Gentlemen, have mercy! If I can at least read English, I can't even read German

I actually reminded my colleagues about this. On their chosen "mov"

Phew, I read the whole topic AS YOU LIKE IT. I wanted to say the same thing, but I didn't, to be honest - I was just tired... A lot of useful things have been said, but I do not see the point in abstracting myself from the world in an ivory tower in order to enjoy my greatness and superiority over the surrounding world (i.e., the so-called "majority"). I am for the second option.

Ttozhe for the second (where really there, without ethics and code), but the last option-also would choose (although where now without money..... And depending on how much they will give ).

Sorry, but taxonomists already describe species for money - for salaries, grants, and bonuses. If I have a grant (and, by the way, was!) Berezovsky, then why not name it? Of course, I won't mention it (but it is noteworthy that when I received the grant, some colleagues urged me not to take this money - moral principles? - hardly). Or in honor of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Reputation among colleagues is another matter.... Especially moral people can drink so much blood that it's time to name a new species in their honor. And a normal taxonomist will treat such things with humor.

.. Especially moral people can drink so much blood that it's time to name a new species in their honor.

But this is not something that bores and moralists should perpetuate... It is better to let the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and Berezovsky As the lesser of two evils

This post was edited by Salix - 30.01.2008 03: 40

You can perpetuate anyone - there are species named after Hitler, Mao, Lysenko. But if I name a dung beetle after Bush, is it Bush's honor?! One friend deals with objects that, sorry, look like a penis. One, well, a very large species, named after a very big womanizer. And the second one, a very small one, in honor of ... the chief.

>But if I name a dung beetle after Bush, is it Bush's honor?!
Even as an honor! But the dung beetle, thank God, will never know that he was called that, otherwise he will be offended again...

You can perpetuate anyone - there are species named after Hitler, Mao, Lysenko. But if I name a dung beetle after Bush, is it Bush's honor?! One friend deals with objects that, sorry, look like a penis. One, well, a very large species, named after a very big womanizer. And the second one, a very small one, in honor of ... the chief.

Are these like mushrooms?

Are these like mushrooms?

Priapulids rather

Corals..

- I propose to offer those who offer to raise the salary of a biology teacher - so that students can distinguish a spider from an insect even without a name after training...

By the way, is it true that in China they pay for first descriptions in hard yuan?

I chose the former.Probably more appropriate for me.2 and 3 are not clear to me in the definition, and 4 and 5 are not suitable.
Now the argument-Some Vasya Pupkin (I hope none of the forumchan did not offend), far from entomology biologyzoology and generally far from everything, but having a tight purse, doper that in this way you can perpetuate yourself.It looks insulting to me.In comparison with famous collectors,founders of museums - Vasya Pupkin is simply 0. And people who called the described species, even if not the most flattering names, will cause me much more respect.They worked,found, and described.
I read somewhere(I may be wrong about the name) that O. Berlov found a new species of beetle in Siberia on some snow field that jumped and stank, and gave the name "poprygunius perdunicus".Yes, Westerners do not understand this name, but I found it myself, described it myself, and gave it the name myself.And that's right!

  
I read somewhere(I may be wrong about the name) that O. Berlov found a new species of beetle in Siberia on some snow field that jumped and stank, and gave the name "poprygunius perdunicus".Yes, Westerners do not understand this name, but I found it myself, described it myself, and gave it the name myself.And that's right!

I haven't laughed like this in a long time...)))))
On the first of April, he found it... And I also called the first of April...))))

Yes, it's clear that it's a joke,but a joke in the subject.

On the first of April, he found it... And I also called the first of April...))))

It's a pity... that there is no such name.

For example, there is a cockroach Skok, it seems to have jumped.

This topic is very interesting. If a person provided sponsorship, this is a normal reason to perpetuate it.
And this was very common in the history of zoology and botany. All sorts of governors-general, old smart moneybags, etc.
Very interested in what kind of grants Berezovsky? I didn't hear it.
To be honest, I would describe a great fat cossida for cash. Easy!