Re: Plagiarism Story Part IV
By now you have probably asked yourself,"Why am I reading this"? You can
also ask, "Why is Jim writing this"? I know it's not easy to read. It's
even harder to write. But I promised myself and interested readers that
I would tell the true story. So I will continue to the end, trying to be
as accurate and as fair as I can be. We are not even halfway there yet,
so please bear with me. Now we enter into the nitty-gritty part of the
We have arrived at the point where Clans of Sporting Clones is
synonomous with Groups of Related Sports, which is the same as the
Modified Benedict Cross, also called the Artist's Palette which evolved
then to the Hosta Clock (which made it easy to use 12 o'clock, for
example, to indicate the color green or blue on the clock), now known as
the Hosta Wheel.There was no intent to make it confusing. It just
happened that way...sorry.
We are now beginning the discussion of proof of the plagiarism by Ben.
Remember the definitions described in Part II to determine if they fit
events being discussed. We are discussing at this point the first major
occurrence...the Cultivar Group article. Incidents contained in the Book
of Sports will be discussed later. Other incidences concerning other
people will not be discussed by me unless I was involved personally.
The Journal article "Using an Artist's Palette to Classify Hosta Sports"
was written in the Fall of 1995, sent to Editor Crockett sometime in
early winter and published in Journal 27.1 in May 1996. If we skip 12
months ahead into the future, we will find that Journal 28.1 contains an
article by Ben J M Zonneveld entitled "Cultivar and Cultivar Definitions
Applied to Hosta". In the article Ben defines the Cultivar Group Concept
employing new rules adopted by the International Committee for
Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), effective in January 1996. My
purpose is not to critique this article... rather to point out that some
of the examples of Cultivar Groups and their sports "proposed by Ben
Zonneveld" (to use his words), represents data that was already
published a year or more previously in Journals 26.2 and 27.1. Ben
copied this data and used it without citation of source...he modified it
slightly, added to it somewhat, although erroneously, declared he
intended to use it for other specific purposes different from mine and
submitted it in a fashion to make it appear to be his own work. I
suggest that readers apply all of the criteria used to determine
plagiarism to this incident. The reader should determine for himself if
this is a typical case of a plagiary. I contend that it is. Let me know
if I am wrong please and give your ratrionale.
I do not make my case just by STATING that plagiary was committed. I
must prove it...with the help of Ben's words.He has been asked by
several people on several occasions via e-mail posts, what was the
source of his information? We were told in an e-mail of June 3, 1997 for
" I collected myself data for about two years from any possible
source....Maybe I should have referred to the Artist' Palette article
but I used NONE of the data nor was there any relation to the group
concept" (in the article)".
Here you have an admission of using data from any possible source. In
his post he makes no reference to the need to cite these sources. He
claims he did not use any data from J Hawes. This is a false claim which
I will prove. Simply look at the Golden Tiara Cultivar Group "proposed
by Ben Zonneveld" on page 40 of Journal 28.1. This group of sports was
published 18 months prior in the "Clans" article in Journal 26.2.
Furthermore, Ben mentions Lime Tiara in this group. There is only one
plant of Lime Tiara. It exists in my garden. It is a sport of Emerald
Scepter as indicated in the Clans article. This is the only incident of
publication of this information by me except when I re-published it in a
handout of Wheels given on the occasion of my talk at the Scientific
Meeting in Chicago in January 1998. Ben was there, got a copy of the
Handout. Since Ben mentions it in his Cultivar Group article which was
published six months before the Winter Scientifc Meeting, he must have
copied it from the first source of availability...the Clans article,
right Ben? He has not mentioned the Clans article even once. I have
indicated previously that the Clans article and the Artist's Palette
article were written about the same time, one after the other, and
described the same concept, therefore should be considered to be
articles integrally related to each other.
Ben has plagiarized data as I have proven. He denied that he used my
data. Therefore even this attempt at a coverup is an additional
occurence of plagiary. I am beginning to suspect that perhaps Ben does
not understand what plagiarism is.
Timing is all important in considering if plagiarism occurred or not.
Let me give an example to emphasize this point. Let's go back to May
1996 when Journal 27.1 was published containing the Artist's Palette
article in which data on 25 additional Groups of Related Sports were
presented. This information was made available for all members of the
AHS to read about, study, use in any fashion they wished under AHS
copywrite rules. It is assumed that all understood conventions within
our society regarding plagiarism also apply... that information that is
not generally known, from a specific or distinct source, or previously
published, written or even spoken , should not be copied and used
without acknowledgment of the source of the information, especially in a
manner that attempts to pass off that the information is the creation of
the person in the act of committing the plagiary.
In several e-mail posts Ben has explained that he did not commit
plagiary and gave his proof.In a post dated May 26, 1997 Ben stated:
(These are accurate , verbatum quotes)
"Last year in August (1996) I was with Dr. Olson. The new Journal just
was arrived. In it I found the hosta wheel of J Hawes. I showed Olson
and later I few others my booklet with all published sports of hosta.
Clearly Jim and I have done the same thing simultaniously.
The . reason that I published about it was
1. To show a different way, more suitable for write ups or computers to
note the sports
2. To introduce the Groups concept for sports. Thanks for the
baywatchers caming to my rescue in this nash-ty week......"
Ben J.M. Zonneveld...
It is obvious (from his statements) that he copied all published sports
of hosta in his book. It is obvious that there was no citation of
sources of information. His stated purpose was to present this
information in a different way...his way, which was "more suitable".
Another purpose was to "introduce " the group concept.
One final observation...This proof submitted by Ben is proof that he
plagiarized. He admitted it but doesn't recognize that he did. His claim
is... "clearly that Jim and I (Ben) did the same thing
simultaneously". I think not. There was clearly adequate time between
May 1996(date of publishing) and August 1996( date of showing someone a
notebook) to copy such data as one wishes, in the effort to claim it as
one's own work. What kind of dummies would be convinced by the strength
of this evidence, especially from someone who admits copying all data
from all publications available to him?
I rest my case for now. There is scads more to discuss, to provide
specific proof that Ben copied much data from me and used in a fashion
characterized as plagiarism. I will resume soon with Part V when I
recover from disbelief and amazement at the blatancy of it all.
To sign-off this list, send email to email@example.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN