[Taxacom] the ICZN and Georges vs. Wells

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Why is this interesting? 
I think you mean: Why is this "interesting"?
Answer: I'll assume the question is rhetorical (particularly since my original statement was so!)

"Funny", isn't it? The poor taxonomists are ranting both against the "marginalised pseudo-amateurs" with their non-peer reviewed papers in dodgy journals, but also against the professional molecular biologists who describe morphologically indistinguishable lineages as new species in throughly peer reviewed prestigious journals (though the "peers" would seem to be only other molecular biologists) ...

>For a lover of turtles...
testudinephile! [my new word for the day!]

>Ps why is there such a link to wikispecies leading into nowhere instead of a direct link on Zootaxa
Leading into nowhere??? There are direct links to all today's Zootaxa papers on the Wikispecies page. It is only one more click away than if I posted a direct link directly, but I had just tweeted that link to Zootaxa so it was already on my clipboard, that's all ...

 

________________________________
From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Mon, 7 June, 2010 3:50:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] the ICZN and Georges vs. Wells

Why is this interesting? 

It is a paper written by "taxonomoists" ranting against the amateur
taxonomists and their way of publishing (in privately printed, non-peer
review journals) and suggesting again for ICZN to establish a list of
official journals to publish nomneclaturial acts.

What the authors missing though is to establish a real scientific framework
against other, new descriptions can be measured. This includes a DNA
sequence famework - not a theoretical discussion why this can not work. It
includes a proper visual documentation with standard color images, not just
text nobody but the authors can deal with. If at least the latter two would
be in place, then at least these other authors could be challenged to
provide similar evidence. 

For a lover of turtles, these sort of papers are a pain and do not really
help to foster the knowledge of this group. There is enough space to add the
images in the publication or at least provide links to an image database.

Donat

Ps why is there such a link to wikispeciesleading into nowhere instead of a
direct link on Zootaxa, ie this one
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02496p037.pdf



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:43 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] the ICZN and Georges vs. Wells

I haven't read it all myself yet, but the Georges & Thomson paper published
in todays Zootaxa (see
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stho002/notepad) promises to be an
"interesting read" (see particularly the section on nomenclatural issues)
...


      
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5177 (20100606) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com