Dear Rolando,Well said and "Bravo!"Felicidades,jerry
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy , an AT&T LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Rolando Bastida Zavala <rolando from angel.umar.mx> Date: 12/4/18 11:17 (GMT-05:00) To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu Subject: Re: [Annelida] FW: Why are they doing it?
Dear Lena,
Is for not believe. However, if my memory no fails, Plos-one published some years ago
a paper about the hand and the intelligent design! And in spite of everything, they
charge for publishing these mess.
Enrique Balech, a Argentinian protozoologist, said "An ecological study that rests on
bad taxonomy is born dead: it serves little and, worse, it can generate an unfortunate
chain of errors".
Sometimes, the invasion ecologists are with hurry for publish and they records species
of other regions without critical arguments, descriptions (or diagnosis), or, at
least, pictures. I think (remembering the words of Sergio Salazar) that the journals
should had as review policy include at least an expert by each taxon group included in
the manuscript. Additionally, should be mandatory that the authors deposit voucher
specimens in collections.
In this case, the authors, journal and reviewers are guilty by publish this wrong
paper. For this is mandatory publish a adequate response.
Saludos!
Rolando
On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 08:49:56 +0200, Christos Arvanitidis wrote
> Dear Lena and colleagues,
>> In such cases, it is suggested by all editors that a critique article
> pointing out these inconsistencies should be submitted to the same
> Journal. And such articles are, indeed, considered as formal
> publications.
> In this particular journal, I'm sure you can even ask for a fee waiver
> to avoid the high publication costs.
>> I remember for example Dr. Zibrowius who had detected three such cases
> of "new species" in molluscs and other phyla whose the descriptions
> were in fact based on Ditrupa arietina individuals.
>> I hope this helps.
>> Cheers,
>> Christos.
>> Quoting Elena Kupriyanova <Elena.Kupriyanova from austmus.gov.au>:
>> > Dear all,
> >
> > Sorry, I just cannot be quiet about it. I just seriously wonder why
> > invasion ecologists so blatantly ignore any taxonomical research and
> > I wonder where they get information that they publish?
> >
> > Here is a recent example
> > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191859> >
> > They claim that they found common Australian serpulid Spirobranchus
> > taeniatus and that it is a NATIVE SPECIES in Bay of Biscay, Spain. A
> > 5-second search shows to anyone that this species was described from
> > Australia and is known only from temperate Australia (for example
> > http://www.iobis.org/explore/#/taxon/844904).
> > They also write exactly this:
> > Five species were not native: Crassostrea gigas, Ostrea stentina,
> > Austrominius modestus, Serpula columbiana, and Neodexiospira sp. C.
> > gigas and A. modestus are listed in the global invasive species
> > database (GISD, http://www.issg.org/database).
> > Yes, Serpula columbiana is not a native species in the study area,
> > it is known only from the West Coast of the USA, but it is NOT
> > listed in the database above (check you don't belive me)!
> > See Fig. 5 - this is what their wonderful identification "using
> > genetic barcoding" looks like - the sequences are fragments of 18S!
> > And their photos do not even closely resemble tubes of Spirobranchus
> > taeniatus and Serpula columbiana.
> > I just cannot believe it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Elena Kupriyanova
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Marine Invertebrates
> >
> > Associate Editor,
> > Records of the Australian Museum
> >
> > Australian Museum Research Institute
> > 1 William Street Sydney NSW 2010 Australia
> > t 61 2 9320 6340 m 61402735679 f 61 2 9320 6059
> > Visit:
> > http://www.australianmuseum.net.au<http://www.australianmuseum.net.au/>
> > Like: http://www.facebook.com/australianmuseum> > Follow: http://www.twitter.com/austmus> > Watch: http://www.youtube.com/austmus> > Inspiring the exploration of nature and cultures
> >
> > [AM_Logo_Master_RGB_10cm copy.GIF]<http://australianmuseum.net.au/>
> >
> > [Image removed by sender.]<https://australianmuseum.net.au/landing/whales/>
> > Click here to read the Australian Museum email disclaimer.
> > The Australian Museum email
> > disclaimer<https://australianmuseum.net.au/images/footer/disclaimer.htm>
> >
> > [https://australianmuseum.net.au/images/footer/am_email_signature.jpg] > > <https://australianmuseum.net.au/landing/whales/>
> >
> > Click here to read the Australian Museum email disclaimer.
> >
> > The Australian Museum email
> > disclaimer<https://australianmuseum.net.au/images/footer/disclaimer.htm>
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/
