[Taxacom] Vital study of an organism on planet Earth

[Robinwbruce at aol.com]

'Sinister sub-test' ? Hmm.  I think I would file under 'foolish  notion' 
sensu Burns, R. 1786, to a louse, final verse. The problem with foolish  
notions is that if they are not identified as such, they quickly morph  and 
multiply into 'Extraordinary popular delusions [and the madness of  crowds]' 
sensu  Mackay, C. 1841.
 
However there is a sub-text that I sense, and it is worrying;  biology now 
largely seems to have become a post-taxonomic and  post-organismal 'science'.
 
Cheers
 
Robin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/17/2012 2:25:29 A.M. GMT Daylight Time,  
barry_roth at yahoo.com writes:

Fully  agree with Geoff on this, and the sinister subtext is that 
taxon-driven  research programmes are somehow inferior, not-to-be-named. 

On Jun 16,  2012, at 5:56 PM, "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>  Thanks Michael,
> 
> 
> Oh the folly of it. Why is this  irritating vagueness done? My theory is
> that it's a misguided attempt  to make the research seem so transcending 
in
> results and importance  that the actual taxa don't matter.  Well they do] 
-
> every time.  This work, poorly keyworded, would not have been easily found
> by the  few people it's most relevant to - the bryozoologists (except
> Stephen  has now helped them out).
> 
> In your example there is a natural  point in the abstract flow where the
> family could be revealed. It  isn't. Grrrh!
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> On Sat, June  16, 2012 7:18 pm, Michael Heads wrote:
>> Hi Geoff,
>>  
>> I had to laugh when I saw your link. Here's another  one:
>>  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04057.html
>>  
>> It's quite a common style now, but really annoying. Pierre  Jolivet was
>> complaining about it a while ago. Editors tell you not  to mention the 
name
>> of an organsm in the title - apparently it  isn't good for sales. So if 
you
>> don't mention it in the abstract,  that makes it even better...
>> 
>> Michael  Heads
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Geoff Read  <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> Sorry, the title, abstract and even the keywords won't give  away what
>>> it's
>>> about. But if you have access  and you go to page 2 at the bottom we
>>> promise that there will  be a taxon name mentioned, and you then can
>>>  decide
>>> whether you are further interested.  And living  things all really work
>>> the
>>> same way, don't  they, same basic principles, so it's not as if doing
>>>  that
>>> will waste anyone's time.
>>>  
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/11-1448.1
>>>  
>>> We hope this style catches on.
>>>  
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> The  authors
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> 
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>  
> (2) a Google search specified as:   
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms  here

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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