hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: comment 5 science

At 09:14 AM 2/11/99 +0000, zonneveld <zonneveld@rulbim.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:
"Dear Hosta fans  In science in is not uncommon that two people have the same idee the same time. This well know fact is simply ignored by JH . Just the sole fact that I published a few months later using the same freely available data for a completey different purpose,  he concludes that this "proves" my misbehavior.  Ben J.M.Zonneveld" (end quote)
O<---- My dear hosta fan Ben Zonneveld & hosta luvs assembled here (outgoing via Bcc):  
-- In an effort to pinpoint the exact natures here; 
-- so that this might hopefully, 
-- shed some light on everyone's understanding of this debate
-- pertaining to 'Research & Development of Concepts' on the one hand,
-- and verses possible 'Plagiarism' in that process, on the other hand? 
           OK Ben, of course, you are correct by saying "in science it is not uncommon that two people have the same idea at the same time" however?  When one uses ideas/presentations published by others e.g. The Benedict Cross (Dr. Ralph Benedict) and/or Artist's Palette Clanning (James Hawes) it is generally accepted & understood, that references to these earlier publications will be given, when one wishes to add to these ideas & re-publish.   This is called 'RESEARCH' development & expansion of various hypothesis, and I doubt anyone has a problem with this, when & if credits are given to previous authors.  Even when? -- permission to use someone else's publication has not been given, I doubt this would be questioned, if the references to their material published was made via "blbliography" additions.
           On the other hand, there are those whom seem to un-endingly collect & published ideas from others, and when they re-publish without mentioning their sources for personal writings; and publish as if it were their own ideas then, this is no longer "research" but falls into "plagiary" <-- I believe?...and please correct me, if I'm wrong!
           BTW BEN...did you ever get this material, solicited below?....<paste below> and simply curious....if we can expect to see it in some Scientific publication, under BZ Titles & originality & no credits given? 
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:03:07 +0000
From: zonneveld <zonneveld@rulsfb.LeidenUniv.nl>
Subject: Solberg lecture
To: hosta-l@honza.com
Reply-to: zonneveld@rulsfb.LeidenUniv.nl
Priority: normal
X-Confirm-Reading-To: zonneveld@rulsfb.leidenUniv.nl
Comments: Authenticated sender is <zonneveld@rulsfb.leidenuniv.nl>

Hello Folks
I am still doubting or I should go to Indiana ,but I just returned 
from south -africa....
Anyway here is my question.
Someone mentioned a lecture of B Solberg  about
"how to recognize the parents in the offspring (of Hosta!)"
Is there a transcript/notes of that lecture available?
Ben J.M.Zonneveld Clusius lab pobox 9505 2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands Zonneveld@RULsfb.LeidenUniv.
>>-- more from NASH'ty (as Ben refers to me) ----->> Originally, May of 1997, upon seeing Journal 28.1: it seemed to me, that some serious questioning was in order, regarding the re-writing of the 'Benedict Cross & Artist's Palette Clanning' concepts & earlier publications.  I understand, that this important "GROUPING"  which Ben Zonneveld re-wrote; to make it fall in line with the 'International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants' - 1995 ("Code"), P.Trehane, et al;  AND VIA "GROUP'ing" opposed to "CLAN'ing".  I'll even take a step further by asking you Ben: "Perhaps you were hired/directed to do this momentus task of re-writing Benedict Cross/Artist's Palette Clanning publications, so that, it would now comply with Nomenclature & AHS statures?' simply doing the job you were contracted to do?
           After I posted my question "Is this plagiarism?" in May'97, some interesting replies came back and I'm going to take the liberty....to paste a couple examples below:
<<-- original message below -->>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <steve021@steve021.email.umn.edu>
From: David H Stevenson <steve021@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: hosta-L@honza.com
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 09:12:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Journal 28.1 arrives in Canada (plagiarizm accusation)
Reply-to: David H Stevenson <steve021@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Priority: normal

I believe this a rather rash and unfounded attack on Mr. Zonneveld 
(see post that follows), I had the opportunity to review his article 
on cultivar groups early on at Kevin Waleck's request. 

First let's look at the concept of cultivar groups.  This concept was 
created as part of the International Code of Nomenclature for 
Cultivated Plants (ICNCP).  Below is the definition of the cultivar 

"4.1.  Assemblages of two or more similar, named cultivars within a
genus, species, nothogenus (hybrid genus), nothospecies (hybrid
species) or other denomination class may be designated as

Cultivar groups are tool to organize cultivars for some particular 

Ben Zonneveld did not create this concept, nor does he claim to have. 
He is just using it in the way it was designed.  Jim Hawes also did 
not create this concept and he was not even intending the term group 
in this manner.

When I first had a look at the Zonneveld article (a draft), in it was 
mentioned the Hawes article and the groups mentioned there.  I 
re-read Hawes article and was convinced that Jim had not intended to 
use the term "group" in the manner as defined by the ICNCP.  I 
related my thoughts to both Ben Z. and Kevin W.

When I saw Jim Hawes in Chicago at the MWRHS Scientific Meeting last 
January, I made a point of asking whether he had intended to 
establish cultivar groups in his article.  He said he had not, and 
something to the effect that it was an unfortunate choice of words 
("group").  As it turns out very unfortunate in light of this recent 

Ben Zonneveld took great pains to make sure his article conformed to 
the ICNCP, so that the cultivar groups he defined would be valid.  
Having met him and exchanged numerous emails with him, I believe him 
to be a very honest person.

It is my opinion the Mr. Nash owes Mr. Zonneveld an apology.

We must remind ourselves, as I try to do each time I post a message 
to a listserv or newsgroup, that we are speaking to hundreds, or 
in some cases, thousands of people.  We aren't just speaking over the 
fence to the neighbor.  Accusations can be  very damaging in this 
type of forum and in the majority of cases not particularly 
productive exchanges.

I happen to agree with Butch Ragland in his recent post, that the 
robin is not the appropriate place for such exchanges.  Nevertheless, 
most listservs are basically free-for-alls and we count on each 
member to use good judgment.  In the end people will say whatever 
they choose.

Dave Stevenson
Hosta Registrar

On 16 May 97 at 22:11, Nash Family wrote:

> There is one particular article, which I feel, deserves some serious
> questioning; that is, on page 37, titled 'Cultivar and Cultivar-Group
> Definitions Applied to Hosta' written by Ben Zonneveld...
> Looks to me?.. Like the above mentioned article!.. Is just a re-write?..
> Taken from Volume 27 Number 1... To whit?.. An article titled 'Using an
> Artist's Palette to Classify Hosta Sports' written by Jim Hawes, and
> starting on page 87.  The Grouping of sports, was presented quite nicely by
> Mr. Hawes; and now, Zonneveld presents these ideas again, under his own
> 'Group Titles'; and that is, same grouping, said in a different way, as if
> he thought it up himself; and this, under new Title and Authorship.  I
> think?.. When one uses material already written by someone else; and does
> not give credit, or ask permission of the person who wrote the ideas
> originally; and publishes same, under a new Title and Authorship, then
> perhaps the best way to describe this, is to pull out the Dictionairy --
> QUOTE...
> plagiarize (pl'je-rz') verb
> plagiarized, plagiarizing, plagiarizes verb, transitive
> 1.	To use and pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of another).
> 2.	To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).
> verb, intransitive
> To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.
> - pla'giariz'er noun
> The American Heritager Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
> copyright c 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
> from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.

David H Stevenson
Hosta Registrar
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
3675 Arboretum Dr, PO Box 39, Chanhassen MN 55317 USA
phone: 612-443-2460 ext 168 | Fax: 612-443-2521
email: Steve021@maroon.tc.umn.e

<<--- another paste below from Kevin Walek, AHS Journal Editor --->>

From: Giboshiman@aol.com
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: hosta-l@honza.com, LLittle@edc.org
Subject: Re: Hosta Robbin

Regarding the issue of plagiarism -- I thank David Stephenson for accurately
relating the process he, Jim Hawes and I went through in determining that
what Ben's article did was expand on a theme that Jim started, Ben's was
consistent with the intent of the ICNCP, and was not plagiarism.  As some of
you know the articles for the Journal, at least the last two, but I'm sure
Clyde can chime in that he used similar procedures, go through at least two
parties, other than Kevin Walek for correctness, substantive concerns, and
compliance with AHS or other (i.e., ICNCP) policy.

Further, I would strongly suggest that should Mr. Nash have such concerns in
the future, he may wish to address them to the Journal editor and he may save
himself and the accused (Mr. Zonnenfeld) some unnecessary trial and

It should also be noted that, in fact, this article was held up one issue
because we wanted to make sure all was kosher!

--->> CONCLUSION: As a dues paying member of the AHS, I believe, every member has the right to question any injustices they happen to see, but thanks for you comment otherwise Mr. Kevin Walek (Giboshiman) AHS JOURNAL EDITOR?   There are no "trials & tribulations" at my end Mr. Kevin Walek, because "I COULD NOT CARE LESS!"...what you & the AHS HIERARCHY does?...and I am simply daring to question it, as I see it; and this, on behalf of hosta peoples whom were hurt & offended by your Journal publication, without any credit given to their concept originations -->  Doctor Ralph Benedict, whose thesis originated the 'Benedict Cross' and James Hawes writings, which expanded on it. If the shoes-of-plagAIRism does happen to fit you'ALL (as an AHS ALLIANCE = hiring Zonneveld to do a job?) i.e. to bring the GROUPING IN LINE (quoting your words above) "with AHS or other (i.e., ICNCP) policy."<<-- BY ALL MEANS!....wear them?  Doesn't bother me...none!
TA TA and remaining,

hosta sincerely yours
/William Nash Guelph Ontario Canada <raffi@sympatico.ca>

"NASH'ty" A FINAL NOTE -- regarding all of the above rhetoric:  I have just received an email from James Hawes, whom was given the priviledge of reading my post above, before posting; and this (since & because?) he is one of the agrieved parties in question, not me.   I'm simply throwing words at you all, supporting the case of those who may have been hurt by direct plagiarism done from Holland; and in this case, possibly solicited by the AHS hierarchy themselves... (in cohoots together?..so-to-speak) ...to redo "grouping" for AHS & ICNCP policy objectives...at any cost?

TO ALL...contrary to what some might think & believe, we live in a "free thinking Society" quite different from what the AHS ROBIN notions, philosophy & practices may be regarding "peace in our time"  i.e. Plagiarism is a non-debatable issue & everybody must play by  ROBIN rules, or not at all...

<<-- original Email from James Hawes, received this date -->>

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:06:19 -0500 From: Jim Hawes <hawesj@gcnet.net> Subject: Re: comment 5. To: raffi@sympatico.ca 
I see no conflict. I concur with what you have "splained" to Ben. But I 
doubt he would agree. I do not follow Ben's reasoning when he says in 
one post: 
"We have done the same thing simultaneously" ...and in another says 
"We are using the same data "freely available" for a different reason."
I consider Schmid, Silver Book, catalogues, "freely available", common 
knowledge exceptions for use without permission, but I am concerned when 
he copies and uses without permission or citation any new, rare, 
relatively unknown, those in my garden, or exclusive, one source of 
information type cultivars or groups of cultivars which are previously 
published by ME alone. You can shoot this straight to Ben with my 
complete permission, if you wish.
Thanks for your collaboration, 

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index