GenBank & Taxonomical Nomenclature/identification

[Dr. Neil Snow]

I agree with Peter's comment.  Vouchers allow for repeatability, an
important part of the scientific process.  Anyone remember the lessons
from cold fusion?  Different field (physics), but the same general
concern.  As someone is claimed to have once said, a non-vouchered
report isthe equivalent of a scientific rumor.
NS

Peter Rauch wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Scott Federhen wrote:
> > We can't really require that submitters provice these data,
> > though.  In practice, if we did require submitters to give us a
> > voucher with every entry I think that we would get a lot of
> > incorrect information information from submitters who don't
> > understand what voucher specimens are.
>
> Now, if that isn't the revelation of the year, what is?!
>
> Perhaps _requiring_ a voucher for every entry isn't practical for
> other reasons, but frankly, to accept data from folks who don't
> understand what vouchers are, sounds like a bomb ticking, or an
> ostrich seeing nothing but sand.
>
> Is that really the reason you don't require vouchers?
>
> Peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nsnow.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 279 bytes
Desc: Card for Dr. Neil Snow
URL: <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/attachments/20000728/d700ea19/attachment-0002.vcf>