From daemon Tue Oct 1 02:19:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id CAA27439 Message-Id: <199610010919.CAA27439@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:26:16 +0100 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Francois H. Lallier" Subject: Re: Annelid chemoreception >subject. I am doing both physiology and anatomy. Any references to Annelid >chemoreception in general would be greatly appreciated. You can contact me >directly rather than reply to the list. Here are a few starting points from our team: 1984. TOULMOND A., TCHERNIGOVTZEFF C., GREBER P., JOUIN C. Epidermal sensitivity to hypoxia in the lugworm. Experientia, 40: 541-543. 1985. JOUIN C., TCHERNIGOVTZEFF C., BAUCHER M.F., TOULMOND A. Fine structure of probable mechano- and chemoreceptors in the caudal epidermis of the lugworm, Arenicola marina (Annelida, Polychaeta) Zoomorphology, 105: 76-82. 1987. CONTI E. Acute toxicity of three detergents and two insecticides in the lugworm, Arenicola marina (L.): a histological and a scanning electron microscopic study. Aquat. Toxicol., 10: 325-334. 1988. DEJOURS P., TOULMOND A. Ventilatory reactions of the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.) to ambient water oxygenation changes: a possible mechanism. Physiol. Zool., 61: 407-414. Francois Lallier +--------------------------------------------------+ | ~~ E C O P H Y S I O L O G I E ~~ |+ | STATION BIOLOGIQUE BP74 TEL (33) 98 29 23 11 || |29682 ROSCOFF CEDEX FRANCE FAX (33) 98 29 23 24 || |lallier@sb-roscoff.fr http://www.sb-roscoff.fr|| +--------------------------------------------------+| +--------------------------------------------------+ From daemon Fri Oct 4 19:16:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA20901 Message-Id: <199610050216.TAA20901@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Darius Daunys Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: Klaipeda University Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:40:08 +0200 Subject: Summary of responses on oosorption Dear All, Thanks to all who responded to my questions on eggs resorbtion (oosorbtion) and oversized polychaets. I'm very gratefull to Dr. E. Bonsdorff, Dr. Daniel Martin, Dr. Kevin J. Eckelbarger, Dr. V. Khaitov, Dr. Alastair Grant; and especially Dr. P. Olive for very usefull personal introduction and comments. I enclose the brief summary of received ideas and recomendations on possible new investigations. I have wrote (Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:47:05): I'm an M.Sc student of the Ecology Department at Klaipeda University (Lithuania) and now perform diploma work on the reproductional strategies of brackish water polychaetes in Curonian lagoon (Baltic Sea). In comparison to other Baltic Sea regions my polychaetes seem to be of larger size (width, length and individual weight). Also, I have some evidences on absence of normal reproductional development. I think that worms are unable to develop gametes to mature stage or spawn in oligohaline conditions (salinity below <1 PSU) and resorb their inmature eggs before more saline water came. Could anyone answer me: 1. Does any evidences exist on resorbtion of eggs among polychaetes or macroinvertebrates in general ? 2. If so, then what are the most characteristic features of this phenomena I can look at ? 3. What kind of responses at individual level could be expected in conditions of: a) organic enrichment and pollution, b) non-periodic changes of salinity from nearly 0 up to 6 PSU ? answer 1: Eggs resorbtion is known phenomenon in eg. Nereis (Hediste) diversicolor under certain circumstances (stress, low salinity, over-age etc); animals who have not spawned often live an extra season, and get to be over-sized for their species. However, they die off without spawning, and do not contribute to population development. answer 2: It seems that your questions may be associated with problem of poecyllogony in Polychaeta. Several species of worms may show different modes of larval development: they may have planctotrophic larvae in one place, but in other places this species may have lecitotrofic mode of development. In the last situation there is so-called NURSE EGS, those do not develop (and may be destroyed ?) and they are used as food for larvae. answer 3: It is essential to realise the different implications of oosorption for iteroparous and semelparous worms. In an interoparous form such as the Nephtyid species oosorption can occur and the energy saved can be used for reproduction in a later year. Thus we have observed that oosorption occurs quite frequently in Nephtys hombergi in the R Tyne. Some years the animals become gravid with many eggs then fail to spawn and the unpsent eggs are resorbed gradually over the sommer months. Presumable the energy can be re-deployed as eggs in the next year. Sometimes the spawning failure is partial in which case a few eggs may be released (1981 - Mar Biol. 63; 189-196 and in 1985 Mar Biol 88:235-246). In Nereis the situation would be different because Nereis normally is semelparous and so only breeeds once per lifetime. If oosorption set in late the animal would presumably die and have zero fitness not having produced gametes But, if the process of gamete resorption set in early and the animal in effect delayed breeding for one more year this could presumably be adaptive. It is interesting to note that this type of oosorption can be induced in Nereid diversicolor by endocrinological operations (see Golding and Juwono, 1994) so that is a distinct possibility. You would have to show evidence of the survival of the largest size class in the population from one year to the next without the mortality that is normally associated with breeding. In many animals oosorption can be stimulated by decerebration. The signs would be vauolation of the eggs and indeed a disintigration of the maturing eggs to produce a sort of soup in the body cavity. _____________________________ Also I received some references, which can be useful: Eckelbarger & Grassle. 1984. Role of ovarian follicle cells in vitellogenesis and oocyte resorption in Capitella sp. I. Marine Biology 79: 133-144. Bogucki, M. 1962. Rearing Nereis diversicolor in laboratory conditions. Przeglad Zool. VI: 232-234 Gentil, F., Dauvin, J.C. & Menard, F. (1990) Reproductive biology of the Polychaete Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje in the Bay of Seine (eastern English Channel). J. of Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 142, 13-23 Blake J.A. Reproduction and larvae development of Polydora from Northern New England (Polychaeta: Spionidae)// Ophelia.-1969.-N7.-p.1-63. Levin L.A., Creed E.L. Effect of temperature and food availability on reproductive responses of Streblospio benedicti with planctotrophic or lecithotrophic development // Mar. Biol.-1986.-92,N1.-p.103-113. Willson W.H. Sexual reproductive modes in polychaetes: classification and diversity // Bull. of Mar. Sci.-1991.-48,N2.-p.500-516. Olive, P.J.W., Garwood, P.R. & Bentley, M.G. (1981) Oosorption and reproductive failure in Polychaeta in relation to their reproductive strategy. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France 106, 263-268 Martin, D., Cha, J.-H. & Bhaud, M. (1996).- Consequences of oocyte form modification in Eupolymnia nebulosa (Annelida, Polychaeta). Invert. Reprod . Many thanks and good luck to all listers Darius From daemon Sun Oct 6 21:19:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id VAA06983 Message-Id: <199610070419.VAA06983@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: LLLPOLYTAX@aol.com Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:51:32 -0400 Subject: Proceedings of 5th International Polychaete Conference Dr. Reish ask me to post the following announcement regarding the Proceedings of the 5th International Polychaete Conference on Annelida. The Proceedings will appear in the Bulletin of Marine Science, March 1997, Volume 60 Number 2. Galleys will be sent to authors in February 1997 and will need to be returned promptly (1 week) in order to meet the March publication deadline. Reprint orders will be sent to authors with the galleys. One copy will be sent to all who attended the conference and paid the registration fee. First authors will receive a copy from the Bulletin. Additional copies will be available from Dr. Reish (estimated cost $25.00 US) after March 1997. If anyone has any questions, contact Dr. Reish directly, or send e-mail messages to me and I will route them to him. Larry Lovell Taxonomic Consultant LLLPOLYTAX@AOL.COM -- ANNELIDA LIST Server address = biosci-server@net.bio.net (un/subscribes) Discussion address = annelida@net.bio.net (talk to all members) List archives = URL:http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ From daemon Mon Oct 7 19:46:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA29413 Message-Id: <199610080246.TAA29413@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Hannelore Paxton" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: School of Biological Sciences Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:50:26 GMT+1000 Subject: Prostomial appendages of Eunicea Dear everybody, The subject mentioned above refers to the paper by Lars Orrhage 'On the innervation and homologues of the anterior end appendages of the Eunicea (Polychaeta), with a tentative outline of the fundamental constitution of the cephalic nervous system of the polychaetes', Acta Zool. 76:229-248, 1995. In this paper Orrhage showed that the previously referred to 'ventrolateral antennae' or 'anterior lateral antennae' are homologous with palps, and the 'palps' (frontal palps nd labial palps) are part of the alimentary canal and thus represent dorsal and ventral buccal lips. I have been admiring his work for a long time and think this is a great paper. Presently I am trying to incorporate his conclusions into a revised terminology of the Onuphidae and have run into some difficulties. I have no problems calling the previous 'anterior lateral antennae' palps. Although it does not come easy to call structures that have the same appearance (as in this case the previous five antennae) by different names. However, I find it really difficult to refer to 'dorsal buccal lips' that are nowhere near the mouth and to 'ventral buccal lips' that are above the mouth. And what should we call the structure that I labelled 'lower lip' (Paxton 1986:fig. 3)? Common sense suggests that the 'upper lip' is above the mouth and the 'lower lip' is below. Where would we be if we used strictly homologous terms for instance in the mammal ear structures? I am inviting your comments on whether we should acknowledge the homology of the structures but continue the terminology as in use now, accept the suggestions of Orrhage, or come up with new terms? What are your opinions? Best regards, Hannelore P. ***************************** Hannelore Paxton School of Biological Sciences Macquarie University Sydney N.S.W. 2109 Tel.: 61.2.8508162 Fax : 61.2.8508245 ***************************** From daemon Tue Oct 8 13:41:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA13324 Message-Id: <199610082041.NAA13324@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Helmut Zibrowius" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 8 Oct 96 12:51:53 MST Subject: Re: Prostomial appendages of Eunicea On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:50:26 GMT+1000, Hannelore Paxton wrote: >I am inviting your comments on whether we should acknowledge the homology of >the structures but continue the terminology as in use now, accept the >suggestions of Orrhage, or come up with new terms? >What are your opinions? I do hardly know what Onuphids are - since they are not Serpulids! Nevertheless here my reaction: In whatever taxonomic and descriptive paper on your Onuphidae you can easily and briefly refer to Orrhage's findings of homology. But after such an introduction, showing that you do not ignore those homologies, you may continue to use the traditional term, maybe with between " " or with -like. That may cause least trouble and confusion to those (presumably majority) consulting your papers for taxomomic use. ----------------------------------- Helmut ZIBROWIUS (Centre d'Oceanologie de Marseille) Station Marine d'Endoume Rue Batterie des Lions 13007 Marseille / France E-MAIL: hzibrowi@com.univ-mrs.fr present telephone and fax numbers until 18 October 1996: TEL: (intern.-33) 91041624 FAX: (intern.-33) 91041635 NEW telephone and fax numbers starting 18 October 1996, 23.00 French local time: -- within France TEL: O491041624 FAX: 0491041635 -- from abroad TEL: intern.-33-491041624 FAX: intern.-33-491041635 -------------------------------------------------------- From daemon Thu Oct 10 13:59:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA05570 Message-Id: <199610102059.NAA05570@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:57:46 +0200 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Daniel Beard Organization: Damage Inc. Subject: Please help [arenicolid culture] Dear sirs, I have a live bait shop in Alicante (Spain), and I'm having trouble keeping the worms (arenicolids) alive, let alone breeding them. I was wondering if you could send me any information on worm culture. Thank you for your time. Yours truly, Daniel Beard. From daemon Thu Oct 10 22:42:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA04946 Message-Id: <199610110542.WAA04946@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: GaylePlaia@aol.com Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:52:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Please help [arenicolid culture] Dear Daniel My husband used to grow Arenicola cristata in Pensacola FL. They collected egg sacs and grew them up to adults. He says the most important thing in keeping the adult worms is to keep them in the dark. Their blood is damaged on exposure to light. The procedure for raising them is in: D'Asaro, C.N., and H.C.K. Chen. 1976. Lugworm Aquaculture. Florida Sea Grant Program Report No. 16, 113 pp. Hope this helps. Gayle and Bill Plaia GaylePlaia@aol.com From daemon Fri Oct 18 16:42:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA24372 Message-Id: <199610182342.QAA24372@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:31:32 -0700 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: jablake@ix.netcom.com (JAMES A. BLAKE) Subject: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW Dear Annelid Workers, I thought the Newsgroup was too quiet, so I decided to raise an issue for discussion and debate. Last evening I noticed that Tom Parker had posted a contribution on the Annelid WWW site entitled "Misdiagnosis of Parandalia ocularis (Polychaeta: Pilargidae)." In this article which prints out as two pages with two figures, Tom provides evidence that characters used to separate the eastern Pacific Parandalia ocularis and P. fauveli are incorrect and proposes that the former be synonymised with the latter. Although I applaud Tom's detective work which includes prostomial dissections demonstrating that so-called eyes are actually nerve ganglia, I question the placement of such a contribution in an electronic medium. Are we supposed to now embrace this newly proposed synonymy and incorporate the name changes into our own faunal keys, species lists, and benthic databases? According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), electronic media are not listed as valid means of publication for taxonomic revisions. I do not believe that such a format is proposed for the new Code due for publication in 1997, although there has been considerable discussion about rapid electronic publication on other lists such as Taxacom. Electronic taxonomic journals do not presently exist although I think the botanists are working on such. In any case, the Annelid WWW Site most certainly does not consititute a journal and any citation of this work must be something like Parker (unpublished). I suggest that the only way that Tom's newly proposed synonymy can be suitable for citation, is for him to publish his paper in the open literature. I recommend that he submit this contribution as a research note to a local journal such as the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. This will also provide reviewers with a venue in which to offer suggestions and perhaps improve the presentation. To do nothing more than post a non-reviewed article on the WWW is akin to providing anecdotal comments as are in this NewsGroup and in newsletters. This posting raises the larger question as to whether the Annelid WWW Site should post such items in the first place when such a posting obviously infringes on the Rules established for what constitutes a publication by the ICZN. The very professional, PostScript appearance of documents printed from the WWW can be misleading because such documents have the printed appearance found in journals and in of themselves appear to be publications especially when the illustrations are imbedded within the text. Bye, Jim Blake ENSR, 89 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543 (jablake@ix.netcom.com) From daemon Fri Oct 18 16:42:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA24377 Message-Id: <199610182342.QAA24377@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: Hydrobiology, Biology Dept., Moscow University From: Igor Jirkov Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 12:47:38 +0400 Subject: Micronephthys Dear collegues, we recently published paper on Micronephthys, unfortunately we have no reprints, however we can send by e-mail the English translation of it to those who will interesting in. I have also English translations of almost all my articles, just ask. Igor Jirkov Department of Hydrobiology, Moscow State University, Russia e-mail: jirkov@hydro.bio.msu.su AU I.A.Jirkov, N.Yu.Paraketsova PY 1996 TI Review of the species if the genus Micronephthys (Polychaeta: Nephthyidae) from the White Sea. SO Zool. Zh., 75, 6:831-840 (in Russian, with English summary). AB The examination of numerous specimens of Micronephthys spp. from the White Sea shows, that M.neotena (Noyes, 1980) is present besides M.minuta Theel, 1879 in the material. The species can be easily distinguished under binocular both in living and preserved condition. In M.minuta branchiae usually start from 7th-8th segments, pharynx with 20, more seldom 18 regular rows of subterminal papillae. In M. neotenus branchiae usually start from 6th segment; there are 20 subterminal papillae distally, i.e. originally there are 20 rows as well, but proximally part of rows joined and in the middle part of pharynx always there are 16 rows only. Both species are re-described (no complete and correct description of M.minuta exists until now). Besides the morphological difference they occupy separate niches (live at different depths and temperatures, have different spawning time). The complete review of literature data on biology and distribution is given. -- ANNELIDA discussion list -- Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Fri Oct 18 22:04:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA23158 Message-Id: <199610190504.WAA23158@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 17:47:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW Jim Blake wrote: [...] > the Annelid WWW Site most certainly does not constitute a journal and > any citation of this work must be something like Parker (unpublished). Of course there are ways of citing Internet original work in paper docs, and the above way would not be the accepted one for WWW which is something like: Parker, Thomas [mblcsdla@netcom.com] (October 1996). "Misdiagnosis of Parandalia ocularis (Polychaeta: Pilargidae)." [http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/parandal.html]. The date would be date of visit rather than publication. > ... To do > nothing more than post a non-reviewed article on the WWW is akin to > providing anecdotal comments as are in this NewsGroup and in > newsletters. :-) Anything can be cited, and perhaps the more people who see it the more substance it gains. If necessary we can cite Jim's cautionary msg in print as: Blake, Jim (18 Oct 1996) "Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW." annelida@net.bio.net > > This posting raises the larger question as to whether the Annelid WWW > Site should post such items in the first place when such a posting > obviously infringes on the Rules established for what constitutes a > publication by the ICZN. The very professional, PostScript appearance > of documents printed from the WWW can be misleading because such > documents have the printed appearance found in journals and in of > themselves appear to be publications especially when the illustrations > are imbedded within the text. Umm, they are publications. However, as Jim validly points out, this particular page is not a publication for the purposes of the current ICZN and there is thus possibly a difficulty if someone assumed it was, and also assumed a new synonym was established, even though Tom did not, in my opinion, go that far. We will take Jim's comments to heart and will probably add a caveat of some sort. Meantime the page is withdrawn. I should point out that Tom & I had not yet 'released' it publicly, and I was responsible for making the link available slightly prematurely and not checking if it was a preprint of a submitted paper. Web publications are very useful, electronic preprints are very useful, and I would not like to think 'pseudo' an entirely appropriate tag for taxonomic commentary that happens to be on the annelid resources site. I would like to see more of it since it is one good way of rapidly providing ideas and content for debate and feedback (very rapid as it happened!). It is unfortunately also the case that it is difficult to get due credit for the work involved if it is not also submitted elsewhere. Geoff -- Geoff Read Annelida resources => http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/annelid.html List Archives => http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ From daemon Fri Oct 18 22:07:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA24173 Message-Id: <199610190507.WAA24173@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Mike Satterwhite Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW An interesting comment. It seems however that ANY scientific article ought to be peer reviewed prior to publication. Perhaps that is the intent here, lots of peers out there. Any scientific article ought to be permanently available in an archive, such as a library in print or on CDROM, in addition to being widely distributed in an timely manner. Any publication, electronic or not ought to be copyrighted to validate its authenticity and to protect the rights of the author. An electronic archive would be useful here. Perhaps the Library of Congress should step forward. Electronic publication is always derived from the written work. But here, perhaps sans paper. It is somewhat like the poor man's copyright. Put a "copy" in an envelope and mail it to yourself for the date stamp. The medium should be as permanent as possible. With respect to the validity of the work, again, peer review is the ultimate answer. Perhaps we have the opportunity to create an electronic-peer-review tradition. Otherwise the medium apears to be irrelevant. MS ============================================================================ D. Michael Satterwhite, PhD. Phone: 208-799-2890 at LCSC Division of Natural Science and Mathematics Home: 208-746-3628/7288 Lewis-Clark State College Fax: 208-799-2064 500 8th Street Lewiston, Idaho 83501 e-mail: msatterw@www.lcsc.edu From daemon Sat Oct 19 20:46:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA23390 Message-Id: <199610200346.UAA23390@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 18:37:47 -0700 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: jablake@ix.netcom.com (JAMES A. BLAKE) Subject: The status of Aglaophamus neotenus Noyes Dear Annelid workers, The recent posting by Igor Jirkov (Micronephthys) suggests that there is confusion and disagreement with regard to the placement of the species Aglaophamus neotenus Noyes. I helped George Noyes with his work on this species when I was a graduate student at the Darling Center back in the 1960's. At the time, we thought the species might belong to the genus Micronephthys, but later became convinced otherwise. I am thus very familiar with the species "neotenus". George went on to complete a study of the larvae and described those along with the adults when he published the results of his Masters Thesis in 1980. Subsequently, Ohwada (1985: Pubs. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. 30) referred the species to the genus Nephtys. Most recently, Hilbig (1994: Taxonomic Atlas of the Santa Maria Basin vol. 4) determined that A. neotenus was a synonym of Nephtys cornuta Berkeley and Berkeley, 1945, and that the species agreed very well with the subspecies, N. cornuta franciscana Clark and Jones, 1955, originally described from San Francisco Bay. Hilbig noted that N. cornuta ranged from the eastern Pacific north to SE Alaska and also occurred in Maine, the type locality for A. neotenus. Hilbig noted that the characteristic bifid ventral antennae of N. cornuta also occurred in the specimens from Maine, but at a lower perentage suggesting to her that specimens from California and Maine represented two ends of a range of variability. In other words, a kind of clinal variation. According to Dr. Jirkov, Aglaophamus neotenus is a valid species of Micronephthys and he compares it with M. minuta. I do not see any indication in Jirkov's abstract that he found bifid ventral antennae; the distribution of branchiae and proboscideal papillae appear to be same as described by Hilbig for N. cornuta. There are thus two divergent views regarding the status of this species: (1) A synonym of Nephtys cornuta (2) A valid species of Micronephthys Does anyone have any thoughts on this situation? Jim Blake ENSR, 89 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543 (jablake@ix.netcom.com) From daemon Sun Oct 20 14:04:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA18837 Message-Id: <199610202104.OAA18837@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: schroede@wsu.edu (Paul Schroeder) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW Dear Annelidans, For what it's worth from a non-taxonomist, I share Jim Blake's concern about ephemeral publication of items which need to be permanently recorded. If, in 20 years' time, I need to document a taxonomic change made in 1996 on a Web page or in an electronic discussion group, will it still be around to check? Taxonomic literature has the longest useful lifetime of any form of scientific publication, and ephemeral publication is not the way to go for the sake of future workers who need to document decisions made by workers in the past (like the late 20th century). If we can find a method of permanently archiving such items, then perhaps they should be accepted. Until then, I think it most unwise. Taxonomic literature is difficult enough to locate! Paul Paul C. Schroeder Dept. of Zoology Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-4632 USA Telephone: 509-335-2766 FAX: 509-335-3184 E-Mail: schroede@wsu.edu From daemon Sun Oct 20 20:30:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA27780 Message-Id: <199610210330.UAA27780@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:18:41 +1100 (EETDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Robin Wilson Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Paul Schroeder wrote: > Dear Annelidans, For what it's worth from a non-taxonomist, I share Jim > Blake's concern about ephemeral publication of items which need to be > permanently recorded. If, in 20 years' time, I need to document a taxonomic > change made in 1996 on a Web page or in an electronic discussion group, will > it still be around to check? Taxonomic literature has the longest useful > lifetime of any form of scientific publication, and ephemeral publication is > not the way to go for the sake of future workers who need to document > decisions made by workers in the past (like the late 20th century). If we > can find a method of permanently archiving such items, then perhaps they > should be accepted. Until then, I think it most unwise. Taxonomic literature > is difficult enough to locate! > Dear Annelidans I have to agree with Jim Blake and Paul Schroeder. It is the lack of a permanent archive that renders electronic works dubious entrants to the taxonomic literature. I know that nothing can be truly permanent, and that there are lots of rare and difficult to view paper publications, but a move towards www publication as the _only_ medium would swing the balance seriously towards ephemera. However, there is nothing (apart from time and money!) stopping our trusty moderator from archiving www works annually on a CD-ROM which would have an ISSN number, placing these also in a www archive, and having the contents indexed on Current Contents etc. Such submissions intended for archiving/publication would have to be clearly designated as such by their authors, and could and should be "refereed" by list subscribers. Until something like this happens, I am sure that as authors, we will continue to send writing intended for posterity to more traditional outlets. (And this is from someone who counts himself as a technophile!) bye Robin _____________________________________________________________________ Robin Wilson rwilson@mov.vic.gov.au Museum of Victoria 71 Victoria Crescent telephone 61-3 9284 0216 Abbotsford Victoria fax 61-3 9416 0475 Australia 3067 _____________________________________________________________________ From daemon Mon Oct 21 14:04:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA18619 Message-Id: <199610212104.OAA18619@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Marine Biology Laboratory Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW Dear Geoff and annelida readers: I just got back in the lab today and have now read the brief flurry of comments regarding my Parandalia "article". Now we know there are readers of the group out there. I agree with Blake's comments that some debate/opinion needs to be had to best determine the proper way to handle electronic distribution of taxonomic information-regardless if it is review data or original. Maybe this is a good start. In review: A prior release of a different version of the Parandalia "article" was printed in the monthly SCAMIT Newsletter. This newsletter contains a brief disclaimer of formal taxonomic useage and is controlled in content, not by peer review, but an editor. I suppose I view the annelid newsgroup as a moderated (i.e. editor) electronic newsletter. The advantage of electronic distribution of information; even when it is formatted as a formal taxonomic article, is rapid worldwide distribution. This is hopefully followed by rapid commentary on the content of the article by interested readers. Few science journals publish letters-to-the-editor which contain back and forth commentary between readers and author. I believe this possibility presents one of the best strengths of the web-page/newsgroup. How many pertinent and interesting facts, studies, commentaries, etc are left in a drawer, file or otherwise buried because workers just don't go through the hassle of preparing camera ready copy and send it in to an editorial board that may take 3 months-?x number of years to publish. And what about page/reprint charges actually making it to costly to publish valid data? I hope there is some more consideration/discussion on the appropriate way to distribute, archive, and cite electronic information. I also hope that some taxonomists will feel free to provide comments on the information content in the Parandalia "article". Bye for now, Tom Parker mblcsdla@netcom.com From daemon Mon Oct 21 14:04:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA18606 Message-Id: <199610212104.OAA18606@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:44:13 -0500 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Sam James Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW I would like to weigh in on Paul Schroeder's side with a further cautionary note. Think of all the data carefully archived on punch cards or big tape reels a decade or two ago. Suppose you wanted that stuff usable NOW. Could you get it? Probably not without a fishing expedition. How about ten years from now? Go to the city dump, find the equipment, etc. Suppose you archive the web publications on CD-ROM, or some other apparently long-lived medium? There are people who seriously doubt the longevity of the physical medium (in decades), and whether or not the data format will be easily retrievable in 20 years. Technology under development now could put a trillion bytes per cubic centimeter of plastic. When that happens, who is going to keep those clunky old 10X CD-ROM drives, or bulky old backup tape cartridges? Who is going to take the time to reformat and re-store those old e-publications each time technology takes a great leap in storage/retrieval systems? Will every museum of natural history also have to maintain a museum of computer technology? While paper may not have the aura of permanence about it (fires, acids, floods, etc.), it sure looks better for taxonomic work than electronic publication. Besides, scanners and OCR equipment are getting better all the time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Sam James ~ ~ Dept. of Biology ~ ~ Maharishi Univ. of Mgmt. ~ ~ Fairfield, IA 52557 ~ ~ sjames@mum.edu ~ ~ 515-472-1146 ~ ~ Systematics and Ecology ~ ~ of Earthworms ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From daemon Mon Oct 21 14:05:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA18632 Message-Id: <199610212105.OAA18632@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:35:57 -0800 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Ricardo Martinez-Lara (Ricardo Martinez,Lara)" Subject: Glycera dibranchiata Dear sirs, We would like to know if any information on the culture of Glycera dibranchiata exists? Thank you for your kind attention. L.Veronica Rodriguez CICESE Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. lrodrigu@cicese.mx From daemon Mon Oct 21 14:48:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA24617 Message-Id: <199610212148.OAA24617@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:31:58 +1100 Subject: Replies to Annelida offers Hello folks, Two very generous offers of material have come our way via annelida recently. By default 'Reply-to' is and 'From' is the real person. A reminder: Please be sure when your answer is intended to be non-public that the 'To' address on your outgoing message is indeed the _person_ and not the list. As moderator I have intercepted and redirected a considerable number of requests. I would rather be doing other things, and you would rather I wasn't reading your mail ;-). Thanks, Geoff -- Geoff Read URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/g-read.html From daemon Mon Oct 21 20:04:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA25321 Message-Id: <199610220304.UAA25321@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Mike Satterwhite Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW The issue of electronic publication is not one that will go away. There are two issues, the archive and distribution. Anyone searching for older literature knows that you better be close to a good science library, or you will have to wait a long time for the copy to get to you from the archive, if you can find a library with the publications. If you are in the 3rd World, obstacles are even greater. Start devising a protocol to answer both archive and distributuion issues. While it's unwise to trust CDROM or other electronic media, safety is in replication and renewal. Electronic media will make it possible for a biologist to own the whole library, not just the journals he can afford to subscribe to. Maybe the NIH/NSF needs to commit to researching methods for creating and maintaining archived record, and to coordinate that with our libraries, MS ============================================================================ D. Michael Satterwhite, PhD. Phone: 208-799-2890 at LCSC Division of Natural Science and Mathematics Home: 208-746-3628/7288 Lewis-Clark State College Fax: 208-799-2064 500 8th Street Lewiston, Idaho 83501 e-mail: msatterw@www.lcsc.edu On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Sam James wrote: > I would like to weigh in on Paul Schroeder's side with a further cautionary > note. > > Think of all the data carefully archived on punch cards or big tape reels a > decade or two ago. Suppose you wanted that stuff usable NOW. Could you get > it? Probably not without a fishing expedition. How about ten years from > now? Go to the city dump, find the equipment, etc. Suppose you archive the > web publications on CD-ROM, or some other apparently long-lived medium? > There are people who seriously doubt the longevity of the physical medium > (in decades), and whether or not the data format will be easily retrievable > in 20 years. Technology under development now could put a trillion bytes per > cubic centimeter of plastic. When that happens, who is going to keep those > clunky old 10X CD-ROM drives, or bulky old backup tape cartridges? Who is > going to take the time to reformat and re-store those old e-publications > each time technology takes a great leap in storage/retrieval systems? Will > every museum of natural history also have to maintain a museum of computer > technology? While paper may not have the aura of permanence about it > (fires, acids, floods, etc.), it sure looks better for taxonomic work than > electronic publication. Besides, scanners and OCR equipment are getting > better all the time. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~ Sam James ~ > ~ Dept. of Biology ~ > ~ Maharishi Univ. of Mgmt. ~ > ~ Fairfield, IA 52557 ~ > ~ sjames@mum.edu ~ > ~ 515-472-1146 ~ > ~ Systematics and Ecology ~ > ~ of Earthworms ~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From daemon Tue Oct 22 14:34:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA19315 Message-Id: <199610222134.OAA19315@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 10:29 +0200 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW Dear Geoff and Annelida readers: There are still many of us who do not have electronic-mail resources and/or who have competence in using them (like me). I think it is possible to use these resources only in a preliminary way--but use of them should not be considered publication, just as use of congress abstracts is usually not considered a publication. Moreover, there is no review procedure possible here as in "respectable" journals. Let's use the media but publish convervatively! Nechama Ben-Eliahu, NECHAMA@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL CURATOR, SECTION OF INVERTEBRATES THE SCIENTIFIC COLLECTIONS THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM 91904 From daemon Wed Oct 23 15:48:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA01784 Message-Id: <199610232248.PAA01784@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Marine Biology Laboratory Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Robin Wilson wrote: > > Dear Annelidans > > I have to agree with Jim Blake and Paul Schroeder. It is the lack of > a permanent archive that renders electronic works dubious entrants to the > taxonomic literature. Greetings: So have some designated library(s) print out copies for their holdings. > I know that nothing can be truly permanent, and > that there are lots of rare and difficult to view paper publications, but > a move towards www publication as the _only_ medium would swing the > balance seriously towards ephemera. It should never be the only media, just as paper can no longer be the only media for recording, publishing, and storing science data and results. Insisting on paper-only has the same restrictive impact as the ancient insistence that all scholarly works appear only in Latin. Or how about the French regulation recently issued on French language publications? > However, there is nothing (apart > from time and money!) stopping our trusty moderator from archiving www > works annually on a CD-ROM which would have an ISSN number, placing these > also in a www archive, and having the contents indexed on Current > Contents etc. Such submissions intended for archiving/publication would > have to be clearly designated as such by their authors, and could and > should be "refereed" by list subscribers. Sounds like a good idean Thanks for your comments. Bye for now, Tom Parker mblcsdla@netcom.com From daemon Wed Oct 23 17:19:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA09706 Message-Id: <199610240019.RAA09706@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Marine Biology Laboratory Subject: Re: Pseudo-Taxonomy on the WWW On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Sam James wrote: > I would like to weigh in on Paul Schroeder's side with a further cautionary > note. > > Think of all the data carefully archived on punch cards or big tape reels a > decade or two ago. Suppose you wanted that stuff usable NOW. Could you get > it? Probably not without a fishing expedition. Greetings: Try fishing in university libraries for what you want. Unless you are personally located at the university you have to traipse over to the campus, pay to park your vehicle, find out what building the holdings you want are in, hope it's in its place, pay to Xerox it--oops copyright violation. Sometimes universities need to reconfigure thier holdings to save space or redistribute the works to likely users on campus. If the science works you want are switched to engineering or medical section--you will need to hope these departments are on the main campus. And you're just plain dead in the water if the subscription has been cancelled. > How about ten years from > now? Go to the city dump, find the equipment, etc. Suppose you archive the > web publications on CD-ROM, or some other apparently long-lived medium? > There are people who seriously doubt the longevity of the physical medium > (in decades), and whether or not the data format will be easily retrievable > in 20 years. Technology under development now could put a trillion bytes per > cubic centimeter of plastic. When that happens, who is going to keep those > clunky old 10X CD-ROM drives, or bulky old backup tape cartridges? Who is > going to take the time to reformat and re-store those old e-publications > each time technology takes a great leap in storage/retrieval systems? Librarians will, I suspect. Will > every museum of natural history also have to maintain a museum of computer > technology? In 10-20 years many natural history museums will establish collections and public displays of computer technology, much has they often house automobile and pioneer/farm equipment. Only these newer tech collections will need to actually operate. While paper may not have the aura of permanence about it > (fires, acids, floods, etc.), it sure looks better for taxonomic work than > electronic publication. Use each media for what it does best. And if necessary-place it in dual media. e.g. Rapid/wide distribution=electronic Non-electric, low tech availability=paper Personal surface mail=paper Peer review=both media Ongoing discussion, comment, linking additional data=electronic Multiple copy availability=electronic Current archive standards=paper Language translation=will probably be electronic Fills up your shelf space=paper Fills up your disk space=electronic Subscribed paying reader=paper, may electronic? Thanks for your comments, Bye for now, Tom Parker mblcsdla@netcom.com From daemon Wed Oct 23 19:12:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA20419 Message-Id: <199610240212.TAA20419@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:14:22 +1100 Subject: Dissemination via WWW We may be getting a little away from annelid research but it is important to see what views are held out there. Here's my 2c. Dissemination of _information_ via the WWW (or CD-Rom as second best) is to be heartily encouraged. WWW can far surpass paper print in accessibility, immediacy, low costs, speed of publication, and outreach to an audience well beyond your co-specialists. The commercial journal publishers are worried, and are planning how they can elbow in and maintain market-share of your organisation's dollars in the future. For taxonomy tools you can 'publish' or at least have online, dynamic (constantly updating) things such as museum collection databases and literature databases and various catalogues of taxa. Also evolving, interactive items like keys and guides to taxa (with images). Paper print is left struggling in the dust when presenting the equivalent. Ecologists also can display maps and datasets and images that would not be available in paper print. You can also put up ideas/works for critique by your peers as we have just seen, or as preprints of forthcoming hardcopy. Some of those strengths are also defects when viewed from another perspective. A potentially impermanent, potentially changing document will not be the primary place where anyone will publish new species until technology can create a date-stamped, authenticated, encrypted document, readable by anyone with a simple viewer, but not modifiable. It may already be possible, I don't know. Also there is not yet a formal review process to audit quality of content. We know that and so we don't _yet_ expect the same rigour in an ordinary web page as in conventional publishing. It will happen. There is no reason why, for example, the Int. Polychaetology Assoc. or any similar progressive group, could not eventually get organised to start a formal electronic publication - "The International Online Journal of Polychaete Research" - with full editing and reviewing of content. The ICZN third ed. didn't contemplate the electronic documents we have today and even the new draft code was formulated before the explosion in use of WWW. As I see it under the current rules a WWW page could satisfy the _rules_ for publication. It would probably not pass on _recommendation_ 8a on undesirable processes, but should we take strict notice of recommendations designed for other times? (By the way Tom Parker's page is back online with a disclaimer to satisfy Article 8). Matters arising: I am not an censor/editor of the list content. Moderating the Annelida list I intercept obviously unwanted or misdirected messages and forward the rest. Occasionally I need to do just a little of what can be termed as 'tidying up' a message. I much prefer not to, and certainly do not exercise any editorial control over what is said. Regarding Kansas WWW pages not created by me, if they are there I have decided they are worthwhile, but I act more as technician/advisor in getting them online than as editor of content. Translations can be put on the Kansas web site, as can any other computerised document you would like to circulate. I do want more contributions. Please e-mail to me and I will format them for HTML . This makes them available to everyone at much reduced effort all round than distributing on direct request. (I have just added a link from http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/transl.html to chrysopetalid translations on Thomas Dahlgren's home page at Tjarno MBL (Thanks to Thomas for putting them up)). Of course translations are not the original document and so should be treated with equal circumspection whether web-based or paper typescript. Annelida postings are currently taking many hours to be mailed out by the bionet listserver after I forward them. Just a warning that there may be a delay to be expected, and there is probably nothing to be done about it. You can still check for your posting on the bionet web archive. Regards to you all, -- Geoff Read |\ | | \ /\ / /\ Nat. Inst. Water & Atmos. Res., Wellington NZ | \| | \/ \/ /--\ Taihoro Nukurangi Annelida resources => http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/annelid.html ANNELIDA mailing list => annelida@net.bio.net & biosci-server@net.bio.net List Archives => http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ -- From daemon Thu Oct 24 03:10:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA04710 Message-Id: <199610241010.DAA04710@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: LLLPOLYTAX@aol.com Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 01:31:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Publications on the WWW Dear Annelidans, Well, Jim Blake certainly did open up a can of worms. However, I would like to point out that the taxonomy was not "pseudo", it is the idea that this medium represents a "pseudo-publication" that Jim was correct about. Tom's "paper" was, I'm sure, put on annelida to elicit comments from a broad audience. Knowing Tom, I cannot believe that he ever intended this to constitute publication. Tom's taxonomic conclusions regarding Parandalia fauveli and P. ocularis have been suspected by those of us in southern California for a number of years. I look forward to seeing this posting and hope that Tom will take it the next step (after the electronic review process) and submit it for publication. Larry Lovell Taxonomic Consultant LLLPOLYTAX@aol.com From daemon Thu Oct 24 03:10:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA04712 Message-Id: <199610241010.DAA04712@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Klaus Schnack" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Subject: just a question Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 11:21:43 NFT Hi, just a snippet from MARBIO: > >Subject: marbio: ophionuphis > >How many of us who train novice benthic sorters have found vials of >brittlestar arms labelled 'polychaete' by our apprentices? > >Please let me know if you have come across this as a common >misidentification. Reply to Thanks. > >Richard Turner > >Richard L. Turner >Associate Professor, Florida Institute of Technology Tschau Klaus ,,, (o o) ----------------oOO-(_)-OOo------------------------------- Klaus Schnack ks@sfb313.uni-kiel.de ---------------------------------------------------------- From daemon Thu Oct 24 15:14:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA22791 Message-Id: <199610242214.PAA22791@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: Hydrobiology, Biology Dept., Moscow University From: Igor Jirkov Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 20:41:39 +0400 Subject: Lumbrineridae Dear colleagues; I am a postgraduate student of the Moscow State University (the Department of Hydrobiology). I am interesting in Polychaeta, family Lumbrineridae. I would like very much to have information about the agent, which can extract jaw's apparatus of Lumbrineridae from pharingeal tissue. And it will be grate, if that apparatus will stay unbreaked after extraction. I will be thankful for any information. Sincerely Irina V.Strukova [via ] -- ANNELIDA LIST Server address = biosci-server@net.bio.net (un/subscribes) Discussion address = annelida@net.bio.net (talk to all members) List archives = URL:http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ From daemon Thu Oct 24 17:13:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA05402 Message-Id: <199610250013.RAA05402@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:14:52 +1100 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Publications on the WWW Larry Lovell wrote: > ... the taxonomy was not "pseudo", it is the idea that this > medium represents a "pseudo-publication" that Jim was correct about. Tom should have also used a pseudonym perhaps? Now there's an idea! (I'm just reading a truly awful book about a group of scientists who conspire to become famous as one pseudonymous entity.) I'm prepared to bet that a court of law would decide the web is a publication medium and a web article is a publication. Back in the paper print world it can also be as appropriately cited by biologists as any other hitherto unconventional source of information (Haven't biologists been comfortable with using and citing electronically intangible things like software for many years?) Nevertheless I would be surprised if anyone is eager to cite this particular page. The real question at issue is whether in the view of other taxonomists the page is a publication for the limited purposes of nomenclatural decision making. Immediately after I had put it online for Tom to check Jim ran across it and enquired about it on the list, suggesting it "infringes on the Rules." If so then no-one need worry about it further, but, as I previously said, we have rapidly clarified a somewhat hypothetical problem with a disclaimer. The page cannot be misconstrued in the future as a publication as the ICZN understands such. > "paper" was, I'm sure, put on annelida to elicit comments ... Tom's article was not put on Annelida list but published (oops, sorry about that word again, - make that 'made public') at: URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/parandal.html > hope that Tom will take it the next step (after the electronic review process) > and submit it for publication. Yes indeed, I hope so too. Will Parandalia now continue its unexpected rise into the pantheon of famous polychaetes? Don't go away folks. -- Geoff Read URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/g-read.html From daemon Thu Oct 24 22:17:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA04832 Message-Id: <199610250517.WAA04832@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 21:46:13 -0700 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: jablake@ix.netcom.com (JAMES A. BLAKE) Subject: Re: Pseudo-Publications on the WWW Dear Annelid workers, As the initiator of this discussion, I would like to recap what has happened and offer some additional points. As Larry Lovell noted, a "can of worms has been opened. :) I have counted something like 10 public and private (to me) postings supporting my position that Tom Parker's posting proposing a new synonymy does not belong on the Annelid WWW site because it does not constitute a publication in the sense of the 3rd Edition of the ICZN. Virtually everyone felt that publication in traditional referred journals was preferred for papers having a taxonomic content. I have not seen any postings, apart from Geoff Read, that is in disagreement with this position. Tom's postings have avoided the issue of the legality of the ICZN and he does not seem to realize that there are indeed a set of rules established to bring order to an otherwise chaotic situtation. Non-reviewed contributions to Newsletters or Newsgroups do not validate changes to nomenclature. A major point made in the postings was that papers needed to be reviewed, and indeed that is the heart of scientific publication. I have learned the hard way, that when ones papers are not reviewed carefully prior to publication, they suffer. So for Zoological Nomenclature, we have a set of rules and they must be adhered to, Chapter III. Criteria of Publication begins ... Article 7. Application.--The provisions of this Chapter apply to the publication not only of a new scientific name, but also to that of any nomenclatural act or information likely to affect nomenclature. I think the crux of the matter rests with Article 8. What Constitutes a Publication.. Section (d). Works produced after 1985-- (ii) For a work produced after 1985 by a method other than conventional printing to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement by the author that any new name or nomenclatural act within it is intended for permanent, public, scientific record. Therefore, can Tom Parker (or Geoff Read) claim that the Annelid WWW site is permanent? I DON'T THINK SO!! We have already experienced a change of address from the original Cornell Muse server to the Univ. of Kansas server and two totally different URL addresses. What happens next when the U.KS site folds or NSF stops supporting Julian Humphries. The URL address for a posting, even of the same thing on the Cornell site is different from that on the U.KS site. Therefore one address is gone and another address replaces it. How can this possibly be permanence when the address can change so easily? Nechama pointed out another issue that is considerable concern to me, namely that access to the WWW is still limited. For example, I recently saw a listing by the British Museum of polychaete workers in the UK that provided documentation of their research interests. Out of about 10 workers, only two listed e-mail addresses and of those there is no guarantee that WWW access is available. Therefore the aspect of public access is not necessarily universal. I know for a fact, that two of our very esteemed emeritus polychaete workers in the U.S. do not use e-mail. Geoff said: >I'm prepared to bet that a court of law would decide the web is a >publication medium and a web article is a publication. In general content you are correct, but not according to the ICZN and we must adhere to those rules or there is chaos in the naming of animals. > URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/parandal.html So, what happens when the server changes again? Or, the site disappears completely as it probably will at some point, to be replaced by something else? Where is permanence? Larry Lovell said: > I look forward to seeing this posting and hope that Tom will take it >the next step (after the electronic review process) and submit it for >publication. Well Tom, I guess the pressure is on now. Geoff said: >Will Parandalia now continue its unexpected rise into the pantheon of >famous polychaetes? Don't go away folks. If nothing else, I am sure that every specimen collected in a monitoring program in California will now be checked very carefully. And, I would personally like to know why those "nerve ganglia" are pigmented if they are not eyes? Anybody want to do some electron microscopy? Bye, Jim Blake (jablake@ix.netcom.com) From daemon Fri Oct 25 03:29:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA01111 Message-Id: <199610251029.DAA01111@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:18:06 +0000 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Publications on the WWW I thought this had been thrashed out sufficiently already but ... Jim Blake opined robustly that: > ... Tom Parker's posting proposing a new > synonymy does not belong on the Annelid WWW site because it does not > constitute a publication in the sense of the 3rd Edition of the ICZN. This logic is hard to understand. It already has a self-declared status as a _non-publication_ under ICZN as is traditional amongst newsletter-type items, into which category some people seem to think this web page falls. In any case no one disagrees about its status and Tom doesn't declare a new synonym. It's an interesting little item. What is the problem? > Virtually everyone felt that publication in traditional referred > journals was preferred for papers having a taxonomic content. I have > not seen any postings, apart from Geoff Read, that is in disagreement > with this position. Pardon? I don't believe I volunteered a preference against traditional anything. I said "A potentially impermanent, potentially changing document will not be the primary place where anyone will publish new species until technology can create a date-stamped, authenticated, encrypted document [etc, with comment on a possible refereed electronic journal in the future]" [Jim quotes the code that a publication "must contain a statement by the author that any new name or nomenclatural act within it is intended for permanent, public, scientific record."] > Therefore, can Tom Parker (or Geoff Read) claim that the Annelid WWW > site is permanent? I DON'T THINK SO!! Again I don't see the logic. It's more permanent than you imagine but that's irrelevant as the page declares its status as a _non-publication_ for ICZN (also part of article 8). _If_ it was relevant then we are talking about a statement of intent, not the physical permanence of the object that is the publication, or that houses the publication. No statement of intent = not a ICZN valid publication. No problem (unless anyone becomes enraged that they can't quote it and tear it to shreds). > ... We have already experienced a > change of address from the original Cornell Muse server to the Univ. of > Kansas server and two totally different URL addresses. You'll find that both still work. Isn't the internet a marvellous thing :-) Regards, Geoff -- ANNELIDA discussion list -- Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Fri Oct 25 15:41:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA16401 Message-Id: <199610252241.PAA16401@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Torleif Holthe Subject: ophiurid polychaetes Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:46:19 +0200 I would like to quote my article "Identification of Annelida Polychaeta from Northern European and adjacent Arctic waters" (1992, Gunneria 66, 30pp) p13: "In practical work, when samples are first sorted by technical staff, several other groups of animals with a more or less worm-like body tend to be sorted as polychaetes.Such animals may be marine oligochaetes, but in my experience the following groups are far more frequent in 'polychaete' samples: Pennatulacea, Nemertini, Nematoda, Sipunculida, Phoronida, Caudofoveata, and Scaphopoda. Some Solenogastres and Hemichordata may also occur, and of course a lot of the broken off arms of brittle-stars (Ophiurida)." Torleif Holthe Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim From daemon Fri Oct 25 15:41:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA16411 Message-Id: <199610252241.PAA16411@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Marine Biology Laboratory Subject: Publications on WWW Greetings: I keep seeing my name printed on the screen and wonder if the old theatrical axiom that some-publicity-was-better-than-no-publicity is in fact true! Well, since I seem to have broken an egg, may I suggest that readers give some thought to helping make the omelet? Geoff recently pointed out an actual on-line journal might be worth considering--at least he suggested a title for one. There are of course broad issues unrelated to the actual information in the article being discussed here. I agree that peer review improves all writing. Though I wrote all of it, I did not do so in complete privacy, hidden from editorial inspection. A previous edition of this posting had already been distributed/discussed with a number of polychaete workers locally and made available through as many people as read the local newsletter (I believe paid readership approaches 100-though not all polychaete types). I also realize this did not satisfy the formal ideal of anonymous peer review typical of paper science journals. I guess this allows people to ignore the information in there as not validated. Of course numerous people have ignored the findings contained in formal peer reviewed articles. I invited comments on the contents of the article--and I continue to invite them. I can only imagine that such comments will make the topics discussed in the article more complete and useful. To date the only such comment of this nature that I recall is Blake's suggesting an electron microscopic inspection. I don't have one of those. As I have previously commented, the issues of permanence and universal public access are poorly served by only one media (historically paper) i.e. I still haven't found a copy of Volume 20, 1991 of the journal Environmental Control in the U. S. --no access and permanently unavailable. Solution: Distribute on dual media articles deemed acceptable for distribution. I suspect that the rule makers of publications (ICZN, editors) and those directly involved as librarians should be included in whatever is subsequently discussed. Like all other cans-of-worms, this one benefits from first identifying the worms. Bye for now Tom Parker mblcsdla@netcom.com From daemon Mon Oct 28 14:58:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA05523 Message-Id: <199610282258.OAA05523@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:50:07 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Stacey Renee Webb Subject: Limnodrilus information request Hi! I was wondering if anyone has any information on the lipid content of Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, or any other oligochaetes closely related to this species. I would appreciate even anything that might direct me to the right source to find this information. From the literature I've read so far, apparently not much is known, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Thank you, Stacey Webb -- ANNELIDA LIST Server address = biosci-server@net.bio.net (un/subscribes) Discussion address = annelida@net.bio.net (talk to all members) List archives = URL:http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ From daemon Wed Oct 30 01:19:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA27724 Message-Id: <199610300919.BAA27724@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 17:24 +0200 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Subject: Savigny Description de Egypte et Syrie. Hello fellow worm-people! Savigny collected from Egypt and from Syria and also from other locations and put a melange of locations in his book. I am making a last ditch effort to try to get a more precise location for Savigny's Lycoris fucata (nereidid). In 2nd edition, cited by Hartmann-Schroder as 1820 (but on title plate of volume found in our rare book collection listed as 1826), Savigny notes L. fucata is from "ocean", no location given, having been collected by M. Homberg and conveyed to him by Cuvier. Does anyone know where Homberg was collecting? Was he also a part of the French Expedition to the Middle East? Any assistance on this ancient (Napoleonic) history much appreciated. Thanks. Nechama Ben-Eliahu Curator, Section of Invertebrates, The Scientific Collections The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, J"m 91904. Fax 972-2-666804; telephone 972-2-658 46 33. Nechama@vms.huji.ac.il From daemon Thu Oct 31 12:45:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA17049 Message-Id: <199610312045.MAA17049@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:28:35 -0800 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "ralf.bochert" Organization: Uni-Rostock Subject: Marenzelleria bibliography Dear Anneliders, We are actually preparing a bibliography of the spionid polychaete genus MARENZELLERIA. We have got about 200 references by now. We are looking now for all references concerning these polychaete species to ensure completeness. We will be very grateful, as you could send us references/reprints that contain the genus/species name MARENZELLERIA or (Syn. till 1984: SCOLECOLEPIDES) in 1. all non-popular journals (reports, house journals, journals not quoted in AFSA, Current Contents ..etc. 2. in the Discussion-part of publications, means, that MARENZELLERIA is not quoted in the Titles or the Abstracts of references and could not be easily found. 3. All publication, which are in press by now or manuscripts, which will be published probably soon. Please contact us: Michael L. Zettler Universitaet Rostock WB Allg. Spez. Zool. D-18051 Rostock Germany or via e-mail: ralf.bochert@biologie.uni-rostock.de Thanks to all in advance. From daemon Thu Oct 31 18:02:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id SAA18298 Message-Id: <199611010202.SAA18298@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:27:52 +1100 Subject: Re: Pseudo-Publications on the WWW Is this one do you think? It looks real enough. America's Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of U.S. Ecosystems Available from The Nature Conservancy at: http://www.tnc.org/science/library/pubs/dd/title.html Oh yes, there is also a paper version and there is no taxonomy. So it is not directly relevant to our discussion. But it is interesting to see a major USA environmental organisation doing this simultaneous parallel publication. And it's free. As a result the information has already reached people who would never encounter the paper publication. Believe it, one day not too far off only the electronic version will be produced. Yours prophetically, -- Geoff Read URL:http://www.keil.ukans.edu/~worms/g-read.html