[Annelida] 10th Polychaete Conference: 1st announcement
(by g.read from niwa.co.nz)
Fri May 16 23:11:24 EST 2008
Forwarded for Sergio Salazar by request.
On 17/05/2008 at 2:12 a.m., Sergio Salazar <savs551216 from hotmail.com> wrote:
From: savs551216 from hotmail.comTo: gambimc from szn.it; annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.eduSubject: RE: [Annelida] 10th Polychaete Conference: 1st announcementDate: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:07:04 +0000
Dear Maria Cristina, Adriana and colleagues, Since I regard myself as a key-maker, and a key-maker only, which might be way below the so-called "pure alpha-taxonomy", I was surprised about the emphasis given to the relevance of the taxonomical issues, and their surprising 'glorification' to be presented only as posters. It is true that there is an increasing time and effort needed as you move from a species list, to a species description, to a family revision. Why would they be regarded as equivalent? Since there is an increasing trend to do phylogenetic studies using morphology or molecular methods, but without making the traditional revisions, I fear we, as an academic society, are rejecting basic taxonomy. If this is actually the case, then we are in trouble. Despite the many phylogeny publications to date, there are still many problems regarding the delimitation of species, genera, and even families. If we do not encourage any attempts to solve these, or at least are more supportive of the efforts involved in them, who would be interested on any further pursuit? May I suggest you to have a more balanced approach, and evaluate the abstracts before deciding which would be the best means for its presentation? The critical factors might be the creativity involved, the novelty of the approach, or the amount of new subjects (genes, specimens, species, genera, families) being involved. If these features are not detailed in the abstract, they might be evaluated after a critical reading, combined with some knowledge about the specific literature. Taking these features in mind, even the description of a new species, or the analysis of a single biological feature, might deserve oral presentations, provided there are unique features or problems that have not been studied before. Thus, let research quality drive the type of presentation. Un abrazo cordial, Sergio
> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:15:00 +0200> To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu> From: gambimc from szn.it> CC: > Subject: [Annelida] 10th Polychaete Conference: 1st announcement> > Hi to everybody, sorry for cross-posting the message (1st announcement of > the next Polychaete Conference in Lecce-Italy 2010), but as the Latins > said... "Repetita juvant" (repetitions help)....> Maria Cristina> > > > 1st announcement 1st May 2008> > THE TENTH INTERNATIONAL POLYCHAETE CONFERENCE will be held in LECCE, ITALY > from JUNE 20th to 26th, 2010.> > The guide-line of the Conference will be: Polychaetes as Biological and > Ecological Models: from taxonomy to applied research.> Development, Genetics and Physiology are included within Biological issues. > All the applied aspects are included within Ecological issues. Obviously > Taxonomy is a basic topic for both. Contributions of all aspects of > polychaete research, spanning from taxonomy to applied issues, can be > accepted for presentation. Priority for oral presentations will be given to > those contributions which address, through the use of polychaetes, more > general scientific questions. Pure alpha-taxonomy papers (description of > new species, genus or family revisions etc.) will be accepted only as posters.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1332 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080517/dc354c4c/Header.exe
More information about the Annelida