Jack Pearce wrote:
> Again, taxonomics are key to most other biological disciplines and much
> of aquatic science. Those aware of the issues should continually
> communicated this theme!
Indeed. The bad science is in the papers that do not use the available
taxonomy. I see this in ecological papers published on New Zealand data -
and I think we are not unique! People use the quaint names that they
imagine they can get away with. It does not concern them that their
data thus have little comparative value. There are unlikely to be voucher
specimens so no one will prove them wrong. And referees (equally as
ignorant) let them do it.
I do not see any way of preventing this other than gradual education and
If taxonomy is used then the author or revisor is usually not cited as
such. So citation counts are fundamentally flawed.
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
-- 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