I am very extremely familiar with the cabinet and its collections, since it is I who has studied it and arranged its display here at the AMNH. I will be writing a scholarly article on the collection, addressing Beccaloni’s little blog. He has never seen the collection; he simply dismisses (and misrepresents) compelling evidence (such as identical handwriting on labels, provenance of specimens, etc..), and uses minutiae to make his case. Rather than starting objectively, he has assumed the collection is not a Wallace collection and then gathers trivial evidence to try supporting it (not the way science proceeds). Again, before casting conclusions, allow the evidence to be presented/published.
Roberto: I look forward to finally seeing your ant work published.

Regards,

Dave Grimaldi