| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 01:27:19
As I already wrote in former topics the location „Tibet“ or „Thibet“ is also unbelievable for material came from the dealer Lingke Ji.
Such material was already posted in the forum several times.
Now „Sabbadini & Pesarini (2015)” described such material from Tibet and consequently, they produce new synonymies I really sure, f.e. Xylotrechus triangulifer = X. birmancius (s.l.), Chlorophorus vageapicatus = C. douei, C. crassipes = hederatus, and maybe etc.
I cannot understand why our Italian colleagues are so uncritically with such material. Otherwise this Clytini groups are really difficult, and without male genitals is almost impossible to recognize the sps first.
Furthermore, I hope that scientists, collectors and forum members too are more carefully in handling the purchases. Directly we should prepare a “Black List” for such crime dealers destroying the serious work, the whole science and finally the cooperation too.
I think there are enough problems in our wonderful family, and I’m really sad and annoying about this exhaustions. |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xavier |
Posted - 17/02/2017 : 00:22:22
Ok, fake data from Thailand have 25 years, so we can wait one month. Good luck with Carolus : for him, there is no problem 
I will try to find email of our Italian colleagues : I want to send them some holotypes pictures of species ...that they just do not know. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 16/02/2017 : 23:50:30
important Xavier, beginning of march I'll be in Villach and have to discuss with Carolus of course a lot about this problem,
unfortunately I haven't eMails from the both Italians, sure no problem to get this in the web, but I think its a senseless discussion, I don't like to do this,
furthermore urgently I'll discuss with responsible scientists about fake locations and especially the about the run to describe new species for each variation or population of well known species, in many cases as well as zoogeografical and taxonomical its nearly needless. It is sad that also renowned specialists are an example. |
| africaone |
Posted - 16/02/2017 : 14:16:52
the person who is working (or discovered) on the synonymy has to inform the authors and let them some time to make the correction. |
| Xavier |
Posted - 16/02/2017 : 14:13:18
So, who informs both Italian authors of their new synonyms, and possible fake data ? We have to do that before writing and publishing any paper about their text.
About Thailand fake data, I informed C.Holzschuh and P. Viktora, but they have not sent me a "constructive" answer  . Now, I will inform them about the writing of a paper : I hope they will join us...(if they read this message, send me a reply  ) |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 15/02/2017 : 00:34:44
Indeed it's not our responsibility to prove the fake data, in most cases it is impossible also.
What we can do, and this is our mandatory also via this really important forum, to keep watch about an accurate scientific work, means f.e. to write papers with corrections immediately also without shy for critical comments.
|
| znort |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 14:35:43
Everybody knows that Jinke is a robber. All Jinke specimens are doubtful with false locality.
Jinke doesn't move in Juvisy exposition since few years. Maybe it's for that. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 13:35:20
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier
[quote]if we think there is a problem with data, we have to prove it. It is easy for some people to write "no, it is not fake data, blablabla" because they feel that it will be difficult to prove something.
We do not need to prove that data are fake.
Species can be simply put in synonymy without locality data.
There is no problem for introduced species or for well-known fake data (e.g. Sternotomis described from Jamaica by Drury), isn't?
The problems are two: - New species were superficially described, without considering really similar congeners
- Data are most probably false
The second point adds support to the synonymies (as actually, it furnished a false support to the "new species") |
| Xavier |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 12:32:34
quote:
They are simply ingenuous
Are they, or not ? it is not the problem.
Let's talk about Science : if we think there is a problem with data, we have to prove it. It is easy for some people to write "no, it is not fake data, blablabla" because they feel that it will be difficult to prove something.
So, it will be necessary to think and not to be impressed. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 11:57:27
quote:
Originally posted by Xaurus
I cannot understand why our Italian colleagues are so uncritically with such material.
They are simply ingenuous, as Austrian and Czech colleagues...
Curiously, such Tibetan sellers never sold Xylotrechus stebbingi, so common in Mediterranean countries... |
| Xavier |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 10:36:44
I just received the paper of Sabbadini & Pesarini (2015): you are right Andreas, most (all?) of Clytini species are synonyms. It could be the same for Lepturini.
Fake data or not, I do not understand how it is possible to publish such work: they have not checked enough holotype material or bibliography; and when they did, they did not compare their "new" species to the good old one; it is really scandalous. 
I have not mail addresses of both authors, ...
This morning, I am fed up Cerambycidae and entomology. |
| Pierre |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 10:27:37
I had been working on a very large set of several houndreds of beetles, many mixed families. I did a setting job for a dealer in Switzerland, retired now. That was back in 1992 - 1993.
I remember typical Sabine Steinke materials. Locations: Burma, Dawna; Burma: Tenasserim; Thailand: Chiang Mai; Thailand: Chiang Rai; Philippines: Mindanao. Everything was wearing the same date: 23.6.1989.
Impossible to know if the locations and data were correct... maybe yes, maybe no, who knows.
From my own collection, for example:
http://www.cerambycoidea.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=379&
http://www.cerambycoidea.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=671 (left specimen)
http://www.cerambycoidea.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=380
|
| Xavier |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 09:08:50
Whouah ! 
I have not this paper of SABBADINI & PESARINI, could you share it ?
About fake data from "Tibet" or "Thibet" on this forum, the hunt is on!
By the way :
I prepare a paper about fake localities from Thailand
because:- such material can be in private collections or museums
- the list of " species" with "incertae patriae" must be known by science community
- all species of this list are possible synonyms to check, and - in the other way - it is an information to prevent description of new synonyms from the true original "patria".
I do not know if such paper could have "legal consequences", mainly because selling insects is not so legal in many countries.
I understand why our colleagues do not check anything about data : The race for publication!
Because we are all concerned, I wonder if I will not share my paper about (fake) Thailand on this forum before publishing.
All co-authors are welcome! |
| Andre |
Posted - 14/02/2017 : 09:03:18
The Syn.new from Embrikstrandia fujianensis with Cataphrodisium latemaculatum Pic. is also without words
Siehe Bentanachs 2012: Catalog des Callichromatini..... Cataphrodisium rubripenne Hope |
|
|
