Dear Jim et al.,
Jim has a point in that there are 'incorrect' names on some of the
illustrations. However, I see this as largely irrelevant. Taxonomy is a
subdiscipline of systematics. The main issue of the names of the taxa in
Rouse and Fauchald is that as long as the illustrations refer to the
correct terminal (in this case family) then its OK.
Of course to have used the 'correct' names would in a sense be more
accurate but this would have left people with no idea of where these 'new'
names had come from. This is the case for several figure legends that were
'corrected'. To have introduced the sources would have expanded what some
may feel is an already bloated effort. The names used for the Figure
legends largely represent what was in the original figures and people will
just have to track down subsequent revision of names. This was something I
basically didn't see the point of doing.
I would suggest the publication of full taxonomic reviews of polychaete
taxa is what is really at the heart of Jim's comment. This of course has
nothing to do with Rouse and Fauchald 1997. greg
Greg Rouse
School of Biological Sciences A08
University of Sydney
N.S.W. 2006
Australia
Tel. (02) 9351 5571
Fax (02) 9351 4119
International: 61 2 replaces 02
<gregr at bio.usyd.edu.au>
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
