# dots on maps

[Dr. Neil Snow]

To follow up on Rich's comments re: vouchers, and what will be my last say on the
matter, I was recently told (but cannot properly "voucher" the statement, so will
leave it as "unattributed") that someone once said:

A report in the absence of a voucher is nothing but a rumor.

Science does not advance on rumors.

NS

Richard Rabeler wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Jim Croft wrote:
>
> > > My problems with vouchers/non-vouchers are based partly on Neil's comments
> > > about shot-guns but more importantly on several other thoughts.
> >
> > There is no problem using both vouchered data and unvouchered survey
> > data, as long as it is totally unambiguous what you are dealing with.
> > Used together they can paint a very powerful picture.  And each class of
> > data can be used check, and improve the quality of the other.  I guess
> > that is what maps are: a falsifiable hypothesis that needs testing (or
> > ground-truthing). And that is what science is about, right?
> >
> I agree completely!  I have seen many examples where the basis of a record
> (voucher, sight record, literature, etc.) is NOT clear.  When I come
> across a map that shows a species I'm working on to be in an area from
> which I've not seen any specimens, I DO want to know the basis for the
> report.  Not knowing the data source is frustrating!
>
> Rich Rabeler, MICH