Fwd: Re: Correct identification in sequence studies: role of the editor and reviewer

[Jim Croft]

>>But please don't forget that morphological studies may have neither
>>specimens nor data that can be linked to the statement, "0 - leaves 15-20
>>com mong, 1, leaves 20-28 cm long."  Editors don't seem to mind about this.
>
>maybe not directly, but one assumes that these were generally taken from
>identifiable herbarium specimens and that there is some chance of
>revisiting the collections and checking the measurements... and the
>identification...
>
>thank god for herbaria and their collections...  long may they survive...  :)
>
>An interesting example of dealing with this is the interactive key to
>Australian rainforest trees, shrub and vines compiled by Bernie Hyland,
>Trevor Whiffin and their team.  In this key *all* measurements and
>scorings are tied to *individual* specimens and the ranges and states are
>compiled from these specimens.  Thus nothing has to be rescored when a
>specimen is reidentified; when the key is recompiled the specimen comes
>out in the right place.  Maybe a bit more labour intensive that dealing
>with summary data, but very elegant and in terms of scientific
>defensibility, virtually bomb-proof.
>
>jim

~ Jim Croft ~ jrc at anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~