<?xml version="1.0" ?><html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">On 29 Dec 2008 at 11:14, </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Sergio Salazar</span></font><font
face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> wrote:</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> A search in GoogleScholar indicates that one of the authors, or a homonym,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> of the now famous paper has made other publications on parasitic hirudineans</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> in JMBA and was even involved in a book on toxicology. Thus, I would regard</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> the publication as the result of a young colleague trying to get some lines</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> for the CV, and being in a rush, he failed to check some critical details.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Further, the referee and editors failed to detect some orthographic or</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> grammar problems and the ms was published probably as it was originally</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> sent. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Actually there are papers by the same author pair published six years ago and ten
years ago. The 2002 paper is of a rather better quality than the paper under
discussion, but remarkably similar in approach, presentation & length. I cannot judge
if their identications in 2002 were equally suspect since the organisms are
protozoans. But it does seem that their science abilities have regressed rather than
improved in the six years since 2002. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">A Study on Tetrahymena pyriformis (Holotrichous) and Epistylis sp. (Peritrichous)
Found on Freshwater Leech, Nephelopsis obscura</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=185434&toc=y</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> The paper has several striking features, indeed, and that might make us</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> think nothing in that paper is either reliable or worth reading. I disagree.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> The finding of any eunicid-like polychaete, including a mature female, in</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> the gills of a fish is noteworthy. Once you take a look at the publications</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> employed, it would be easy to understand why they got such species name,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> which is questionable beyond doubt. However, the finding is very interesting</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> and it deserves a more detailed study. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Indeed. Replication of this observation by independent persons is required. There
are no previous such observations although this is a common, much studied species
of fish. Sadly, that all or part is invented, mistaken, or at the very least misguided,
seems likely to me. I see the photo is of the anterior of a small polychaete. Beyond
that I am sceptical.  The fish were "</span></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><span style="font-size:9pt">sampled in the Mediterranean sea".  
How, when, and where
are not revealed, but are essential to know as part of the chain of evidence linking annelid to fish gill. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> This is why Luis and I tried to contact the authors, asking for some worms</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> to better understand the issue and offering some help. We got a 'Yes' reply</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> but no worms at all yet. Hope they can be sent to Guley, since there would</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> be no problems about any international mail restrictions. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">A good positive approach to the mystery.  We await further news then.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Geoff</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">--</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">   Geoff Read <gread@actrix.gen.nz></span></font></div>
<div align="left"></div>
</body>
</html>
