This is an interesting discussion. As someone who publishes both systematic
and ecological papers, having all relevant literature cited is important.
We can now add URLs for most references.
For systematic studies, most relevant papers for each species described or
reviewed will be cited. If the history of a particular group of species is
reviewed, then of course we will take the history back to its origin.
For ecological (benthic) studies, taxonomic sources will be cited if needed
for the reader to understand where all of the names come from. This is
especially important for our deep-sea studies where there are usually no
faunal guides. Another point to be made is that in many of our programs, a
team to taxonomic experts is assembled to ensure that the identifications
and resulting database are the strongest we can make it. This is important
for our deep-sea work where the majority of species are unknown and
experience is critical. In these works, we carefully acknowledge and list
the names of the identification team and taxa they were responsible for. In
this manner, readers who might be interested in say isopods, can contact
the individual who performed the identifications.
All the best,
Jim
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Andrew Mackie <a.mackie from bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
> Sent again as unsuccessful in posting from Museum address. Apologies if
> others eventually come through!
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Andy Mackie
> > Sent: 31 May 2018 14:42
> > To: Annelida
> > Cc: Aida Verdes
> > Subject: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
> >
> > Thanks Aida for the reference.
> >
> > I agree with what others have said. The non-citation of relevant
> taxonomic works has been common for as long as I remember frustrating,
> especially in this day and age where institutions/grant-awarding bodies etc
> rate your work using citation indices. At least ResearchGate has helped
> give us some sort of ratings measure more based on use. In the past, one of
> the lamest excuses by editors and/or referees (including other polychaete
> researchers!) for removing taxonomic references from my own MSS or from
> those I was refereeing was that journal space was limited! With online
> digital publishing this should not happen nowadays ... one hopes.
> >
> > For what it's worth, my take on what should be cited is as follows
> >
> > A. Focussed Taxonomic works
> > • Original description
> > • All significant subsequent works (including revisions and those
> involving relevant re-descriptions and/or images)
> > • Records, although these may well have to be qualified by their likely
> reliability
> >
> > B. Broader Taxonomic works involving many different taxa
> > • Primary identification works used
> > • At least the most relevant papers and revisions
> > • WoRMS should most likely also be cited (for a given date) if names
> have been updated from the above using this resource
> >
> > C. Non-Taxonomic works (e.g., ecological)
> > • Primary identification works used (books, revisions etc)
> > • Where required, certain focussed works and/or keys used
> > • WoRMS should be cited (for a given date) as names will almost
> certainly have been updated from the above using this resource
> >
> > The above is a simple list and can be modified as needed. Obviously the
> criteria for citation differs according to the subject concerned, but - no
> matter what the subject - all necessary citations for writing any
> particular paper MUST be included.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.> indiana.edu> on behalf of Aida Verdes <aida.verdes from uam.es>
> > Sent: 31 May 2018 12:53
> > To: Alejandro Martínez García; Daniel Martin
> > Cc: annelida from net.bio.net> > Subject: RE: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
> >
> > Great idea Sergi!
> >
> > I agree with your concerns and those raised by the rest, and I am happy
> to see there is a will to try to change things. Unfortunately, I think this
> is a very complicated issue with deep roots. Even taxonomists and
> scientists familiar with taxonomic practices are sometimes guilty of not
> citing original descriptions –specially when the study is not taxonomic in
> nature— but as Dani pointed out, this even happens in taxonomic papers.
> >
> > I think a note or letter to a journal is a good idea (although as
> Alejandro mentioned it would have to add something new to Wägele's paper),
> but I doubt it would be very effective. We can contribute by raising
> awareness on the issue, and when reviewing articles and mentoring students,
> but ultimately, scientific journals and editors are the ones with real
> power to enforce this practice in the scientific community in general. To
> my knowledge there are just a few journals that require full citations of
> original species descriptions, and I think this is where we should aim our
> efforts.
> >
> > Perhaps we could write a manifesto/call to action/open letter to
> taxonomists worldwide to sign a pledge to enforce this in their work as
> scientists, mentors, reviewers, editors, etc. Anyways… this is just another
> thought ��
> >
> > Best,
> > Aida
> >
> > Here is another interesting take on the issue
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/syen.12215> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > De: Alejandro Martínez García
> > Enviado: jueves, 31 de mayo de 2018 12:33
> > Para: Daniel Martin
> > CC: annelida from net.bio.net> > Asunto: Re: [Annelida] on the citations of taxonomic papers
> >
> > I just found another very interesting paper I was not aware of on that
> > topic:
> >
> > https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/64/5/860/1685131> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-31 12:25 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Martínez García <
> > amartinez.ull from gmail.com>:
> >
> >> We could try and do something - but I think then we might have to find
> >> something new to add to Wägele's paper. One possibility could be to try
> and
> >> work on a table similar Wägele's Table 1, and use it to show if it has
> been
> >> any improvement after and before 2011. Once we get the data, it is more
> or
> >> less easy to test.
> >>
> >> Another way to make it a bit different could be taking an "annelid
> >> perspective" - we have several annelids that are model organisms that
> are
> >> not mentioned in Wägele's paper and it could be interesting what would
> >> happen with the citations of these authors if the original description
> >> papers would have been cited along with them.
> >>
> >> We could also try and exploit Karen's point (citing the original source
> >> makes it easier to find the original reference) - Then, we might also
> want
> >> to discuss a bit the role of biodiversity databases, such as Worms,
> >> providing access to all this information. I do not see it as clear,
> >> however....
> >>
> >> ...just some of my quick thoughts, a bit for fun... What are yours?
> >> Ale
> >>
> >> PS: By the way, I checked and Wägele's paper has only 69 citations sin
> >> 2011 - So not really many, which somehow indicates that perhaps not many
> >> people is aware of it - or that not so many researchers really cared.
> >>
> >> 2018-05-31 11:56 GMT+02:00 Daniel Martin <dani from ceab.csic.es>:
> >>
> >>> It seems that all arguments we are bringing here on this topic were
> >>> already exposed in the paper mentioned by Alejandro six years ago,
> while
> >>> certainly this has not resulted in changes in editorial policies or,
> which
> >>> would be a basic step, in the behaviour of people writing scientific
> papers.
> >>>
> >>> So, its our turn?
> >>>
> >>> Dani
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ——
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Daniel Martin
> >>> Scientific Researcher
> >>>
> >>> Centre d’Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB - CSIC)
> >>>
> >>> - Carrer d'accès a la Cala Sant Francesc 14
> >>> - 17300 Blanes (Girona), Catalunya (Spain)
> >>> - Tel: (34) 972336101
> >>> - Mobile phone: (34) 636046003
> >>> - Fax: (34) 972337806
> >>> - WWW Institutional: http://www.ceab.csic.es> >>> - WWW Personal: http://www.ceab.csic.es/> personal/daniel-martin-sintes/
> >>>
> >>>> El 31 maig 2018, a les 11:31, Alejandro Martínez García <
> >>> amartinez.ull from gmail.com> va escriure:
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree with Dani on the importance of citing the papers describing
> the
> >>> species along with the taxonomic authorities. Most of you might know it
> >>> already, but for those who does not, here is an interesting reference
> on
> >>> that regard:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118> >>> 6/1742-9994-8-25 <https://frontiersinzoology.bi> >>> omedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-9994-8-25>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would also like to take advantage of my message to invite those of
> >>> you working with cave or anchialine species to the 4th Symposium of
> >>> Anchialine Ecosystems in Lanzarote: www.4isae.es <http://www.4isae.es/> >.
> >>> Have you heard of it already?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Alejandro
> >>>>
> >>>> 2018-05-31 11:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Martin <dani from ceab.csic.es <mailto:
> >>> dani from ceab.csic.es>>:
> >>>> I must say that i fully agree with Sergi’s comment. A species is a
> >>> scientific hypothesis as relevant as any ecological postulate.
> However, we
> >>> are certainly in disadvantage in terms of citations because species
> authors
> >>> are recurrently disregarded in terms of citations. This is particularly
> >>> true when we are talking about ecological works, but not only: yes, in
> >>> taxonomic papers too.
> >>>>
> >>>> In all my reviews, when it applies, I always advice the authors to
> >>> include the references of the species, but I must say that not all
> editors
> >>> agree with this proposal, and I am often seeing the paper I have
> reviewed
> >>> being published without what would be an appropriately complete list of
> >>> cited references.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am giving my full support to Sergi’s initiative, it is time to try
> to
> >>> move things. Maybe we may start by writing a letter clearly explaining
> the
> >>> situation, then try to get support from as much taxonomists as
> possible and
> >>> then address it to any forum where “our” species are inappropriately
> used.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Dani
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ——
> >>>>
> >>>> Dr. Daniel Martin
> >>>> Scientific Researcher
> >>>>
> >>>> Centre d’Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB - CSIC)
> >>>>
> >>>> - Carrer d'accès a la Cala Sant Francesc 14
> >>>> - 17300 Blanes (Girona), Catalunya (Spain)
> >>>> - Tel: (34) 972336101
> >>>> - Mobile phone: (34) 636046003
> >>>> - Fax: (34) 972337806
> >>>> - WWW Institutional: http://www.ceab.csic.es <
> >>> http://www.ceab.csic.es/>
> >>>> - WWW Personal: http://www.ceab.csic.es/person> >>> al/daniel-martin-sintes/ <http://www.ceab.csic.es/perso> >>> nal/daniel-martin-sintes/>
> >>>>
> >>>>> El 31 maig 2018, a les 0:08, Sergio Taboada <sergiotab from gmail.com> >>> <mailto:sergiotab from gmail.com>> va escriure:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Congratulations Geoff for the recognition! Very well deserved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to take advantage on this email to share some thoughts
> >>> with
> >>>>> you that are quite related to WoRMS. These thoughts have probably
> been
> >>>>> raised in the past in this Annelida forum, but I would not like to
> >>> lose the
> >>>>> opportunity to do it now and probably *open a small debate around
> it*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you know how many citations a paper like the one by Folmer et al
> >>> (1994)
> >>>>> describing COI primers universally used for PCR amplification and
> >>>>> sequencing have? The answer is more than 9000. This paper provides a
> >>> very
> >>>>> useful information about the sequences of two primers that many of us
> >>> use
> >>>>> for our barcoding of phylogenetic analysis. But, is it more relevant
> >>> in
> >>>>> terms of citation on a paper than citing the paper that described a
> >>> species
> >>>>> reported in the same paper? The answer for that is that they would be
> >>> at
> >>>>> least (in my opinion) equally relevant and both should be cited in
> >>> the text.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reality is quite different. Papers like the one by Folmer et al
> >>> (1994) are
> >>>>> *always* cited in scientific studies, *while papers describing
> >>> species are*
> >>>>> *rarely* included in the reference lists unless they are part of a
> >>>>> taxonomic study. It means that work done by us (when providing
> >>> essential
> >>>>> information about species in our taxonomic and systematic studies) is
> >>> quite
> >>>>> often disregarded and undervalued. We do probably are kind of
> >>> responsible
> >>>>> for this situation, because we tend to think that
> taxonomic/systematic
> >>>>> studies are not to be cited in, for example, ecological papers. In
> >>> this
> >>>>> kind of ecological studies, for instance, we tend to provide long
> >>> lists of
> >>>>> species that provide a great value for our studies but just consider
> >>> them
> >>>>> as 'simple' names and not as a source of scientific information
> >>> themselves.
> >>>>> Do the papers in which these names were described have less value
> >>> than the
> >>>>> paper by Folmer et al (1994)? The answer is *NO*. There is loads of
> >>> effort
> >>>>> and work behind all these names which should be valued.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What can we do to fix this (unfair) situation? We are a very big and
> >>> active
> >>>>> community of researchers and there are several more communities as
> >>> ours
> >>>>> 'out' there. Most of us review papers and some are part of editorial
> >>> boards
> >>>>> in different scientific journals. I do not probably have a say as an
> >>>>> individual but if joining together (Annelida, Porifera etc etc etc)
> >>> we can
> >>>>> be a quite effective 'super-organism' able to have things changed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *There is a restriction of space in some of the journals: *Ok. Then
> >>> let's
> >>>>> add these references in a Supplementary Reference List.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Taxonomy matters* and if we want other people taking it/us seriously
> >>> we
> >>>>> need to start by giving it the value it deserves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the best,
> >>>>> Sergi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2018-05-28 11:25 GMT+01:00 Barbara Mikac <mikacbarbara from gmail.com> >>> <mailto:mikacbarbara from gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Congratulations and thank you for your efforts, Geoff!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>>> Barbara
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _____________
> >>>>>> Barbara Mikac
> >>>>>> Professor of Bology, microbiology and healthcare control
> >>>>>> Institute of Higher Education "Ettore Majorana"
> >>>>>> Technical and technological Institute - Healthcare biotechnologies
> >>>>>> Via Caselle 26
> >>>>>> 40068 San Lazzaro di Savena
> >>>>>> Bologna
> >>>>>> Italy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22 May 2018 at 07:59, Simon, CA, Dr [csimon from sun.ac.za <mailto:
> >>> csimon from sun.ac.za>] <
> >>>>>> CSIMON from sun.ac.za <mailto:CSIMON from sun.ac.za>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Geoff
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to add on to all the other congratulations that have come
> >>>>>> through
> >>>>>>> these last few days. You and the other editors are doing an amazing
> >>> job
> >>>>>>> that has made all of our lives so much easier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you very much
> >>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <mailto:
> >>> annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu> <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.> >>>>>>> indiana.edu <http://indiana.edu/>> On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:18 AM
> >>>>>>> To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu <mailto:annelida from magpie.bio.in> >>> diana.edu>
> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Annelida] congratulations Geoff!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks Nancy,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It’s great to get a response like that. The idea is that we put up
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> information and explanatory notes, and users can take it as they
> >>> wish,
> >>>>>>> disagree if they have reason to, and let us know if it is wrong,
> >>> but most
> >>>>>>> importantly usually only one person needs to do the time-consuming
> >>>>>> delving
> >>>>>>> into the history and sorting out the anomalies. And everyone,
> >>> including
> >>>>>>> the editors, benefit if the publications are stored at WoRMS or
> >>> linked
> >>>>>>> direct to the BHL online pages, and original descriptions can be
> >>> read at
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> click away. There’s still a lot more to do, but we are making
> >>> progress.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don’t do this alone, but with several current and past editors of
> >>>>>>> particular families, including Harry ten Hove who was there even
> >>> before
> >>>>>>> Kristian contributed his database, and is still there. I’d also
> >>> like to
> >>>>>>> make special mention of João Gil, who has made a major contribution
> >>>>>> across
> >>>>>>> a spectrum of families in the time since he joined in 2013, has got
> >>> very
> >>>>>>> skilled with working at WoRMS, and is great with finding and
> >>> linking the
> >>>>>>> literature. We could not keep up with the inflow without him.
> >>> Thanks
> >>>>>> João!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For those that don’t know, on Twitter I am @WPolyDb posting for
> our
> >>>>>>> section of the WoRMS database, retweeting new lit, nice pics, and
> >>> keeping
> >>>>>>> to wormy topics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Geoff
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Nancy Maciolek [mailto:njmaciolek from gmail.com <mailto:
> >>> njmaciolek from gmail.com>]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018 5:34 a.m.
> >>>>>>> To: Chris Glasby <chris.glasby from nt.gov.au <mailto:
> >>> chris.glasby from nt.gov.au>>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Geoff Read <Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz <mailto:
> >>> Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>>;
> >>>>>> annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.ed> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Annelida] congratulations Geoff!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would like to congratulate Geoff on this award and also thank him
> >>>>>>> enthusiastically for all he has done to significantly upgrade the
> >>> WoRMS
> >>>>>>> database over the past several years. It is simply amazing to me
> >>> that we
> >>>>>>> now have links to so many publications embedded in the database, as
> >>> well
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> history on some of the name changes, comments on same, and other
> >>> pieces
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> information that in the "old days" might have been impossible to
> >>> ferret
> >>>>>> out
> >>>>>>> without a great deal of effort. A huge job, well done.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you, Geoff!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> best regards,
> >>>>>>> Nancy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nancy J. Maciolek
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Chris Glasby <
> >>> chris.glasby from nt.gov.au <mailto:chris.glasby from nt.gov.au><
> >>>>>>> mailto:chris.glasby from nt.gov.au <mailto:chris.glasby from nt.gov.au>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hats off to our World Polychaeta Database leader.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> WoRMS has just announced that Geoff has received an 'Achievement
> >>> Award'
> >>>>>> at
> >>>>>>> the 5th World Conference of Marine Biodiversity (Canada, Montreal,
> >>> 16
> >>>>>> May)
> >>>>>>> for the major and very detailed contributions he has made to WoRMS
> >>> in the
> >>>>>>> past years, and his input & constructive feedback during his time
> >>> on the
> >>>>>>> Steering Committee.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The announcement also acknowledged his work as the driving force
> >>> behind
> >>>>>>> The World Polychaeta Database (http://www.marinespecies.org/> >>> polychaeta <http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta>),
> >>>>>>> his efforts to create a more inclusive online AnnelidaBase (in
> >>> analogy
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> MolluscaBase), and for communicating the good work of WoRMS
> >>> through
> >>>>>>> Twitter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Great work Geoff!! I think I can say for all that we are all
> >>> massively
> >>>>>>> appreciative of the work you do to make our online annelid lives
> >>> easier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best, Chris
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [http://cdn.sun.ac.za/100/ProductionFooter.jpg <
> >>> http://cdn.sun.ac.za/100/ProductionFooter.jpg>]<http://
> >>>>>>> www.sun.ac.za/english/Pages/Water-crisis.aspx <
> >>> http://www.sun.ac.za/english/Pages/Water-crisis.aspx>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The integrity and confidentiality of this email is governed by
> these
> >>>>>>> terms. Disclaimer<http://www.sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer <
> >>> http://www.sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer>>
> >>>>>>> Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die
> >>>>>> volgende
> >>>>>>> bepalings gereël. Vrywaringsklousule<http://www <http://www/>.
> >>>>>> sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer <http://sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Annelida mailing list
> >>>>>>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net <mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> >>>>>>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida <
> >>> http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>
> >>>>>>> Resources: http://www.annelida.net <http://www.annelida.net/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Annelida mailing list
> >>>>>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net <mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> >>>>>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida <
> >>> http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>
> >>>>>> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/ <
> >>> http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sergi Taboada
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Natural History Museum of London
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Life Sciences Dept., Invertebrates Division
> >>>>> DC1, 6th floor
> >>>>> Office 605
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, London (UK)
> >>>>> Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7492 5433
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sergiotab from gmail.com <mailto:sergiotab from gmail.com>
> >>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada <
> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada>>Sergi Taboada in
> >>>>> Researchgate <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada <
> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Annelida mailing list
> >>>>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net <mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> >>>>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida <
> >>> http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>
> >>>>> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/ <
> >>> http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Annelida mailing list
> >>>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net <mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> >>>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida <
> >>> http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>
> >>>> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/ <
> >>> 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/> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/> >
> > YMWADIAD
> > Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg, ac yn sicrhau y
> byddwn yn cyfathrebu � chi yn eich iaith ddewisol, boed yn Gymraeg, Saesneg
> neu�r ddwy, dim ond i chi ein hysbysu. Ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn peri
> oedi.
> > Mae pob neges e-bost a anfonir at neu gan Amgueddfa Cymru yn cael ei
> > sganio gan systemau diogelwch awtomatig. Sganiwyd y neges hon am firysau
> cyn ei hanfon, ond dylech hefyd wirio bod y neges, a phob atodiad ynddi, yn
> rhydd o firysau cyn ei defnyddio. Nid ydym yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw
> golled neu ddifrod o ganlyniad i agor y neges neu unrhyw atodiadau. Gall y
> neges hon ac unrhyw ffeiliau a atodir ynddi gynnwys gwybodaeth gyfrinachol
> a fwriadwyd ar gyfer y derbynnydd yn unig. Os ydych chi wedi derbyn y neges
> trwy gamgymeriad, hysbyswch ni a dileu�r neges. Safbwyntiau personol yr
> awdur a fynegir yn y neges hon, ac nid ydynt o reidrwydd yn cynrychioli
> safbwyntiau Amgueddfa Cymru. Nid ydym yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw
> wallau, llygredd neu esgeulustod a allai godi wrth drosglwyddo'r neges hon.
> >
> > DISCLAIMER
> > We welcome correspondence in Welsh and English, and we will ensure that
> we communicate with you in the language of your choice, whether that�s
> English, Welsh or both if you let us know which you prefer. Corresponding
> in Welsh will not lead to any delay.
> > E-mail to and from Amgueddfa Cymru is scanned by automated security
> systems. This message was scanned for viruses before transmission, but you
> should also satisfy yourself that the message, and all attachments, are
> virus-free before use. We can accept no responsibility for any loss or
> damage that might arise from opening the message or any attachments. This
> message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
> information intended only for the recipient. If you receive the message by
> mistake please inform us and delete it. The views expressed in this message
> are the personal views of the author and may not necessarily represent
> those of Amgueddfa Cymru. We accept no liability for any errors, corruption
> or omissions that might arise in transmission of this message.
> >
> > --
> > Scanned by FuseMail.
>>> Mae croeso i chi gysylltu gyda'r Brifysgol yn Gymraeg neu Saesneg
>> You are welcome to contact the University in Welsh or English
>> Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565
>> Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys
> deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y
> cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon
> trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os
> na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw
> neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu
> safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn
> cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod
> y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn
> ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr
> e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae
> rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor.
>> This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is
> solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this
> email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email.
> If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or
> disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are
> solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor
> University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any
> attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated
> in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a
> binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the
> Bangor University Finance Office.
>>> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/>
--
James A. Blake, Ph.D.
Aquatic Research & Consulting
24 Hitty Tom Road
Duxbury, MA 02332
CELL: 508-277-2760
E-Mail: jablake9 from gmail.com
