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

[Peter Stevens]

Indeed, the right way to go, aklthough I appreciate the fact that it may
not be practicable except for particular problems.  As to your hope that
one would be able to reconstruct the data in some way, I suspect it is just
that - a hope - in most cases, and if possible, a hell of a lot of work!
Better to do it right the first time around.

P.


>>>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/ ~