[Taxacom] Vital study of an organism on planet Earth

[Barry Roth]

As for sinister, I bend before Robin's erudition.  But I think we are worrying about the same trend.
 
Barry  

________________________________
 From: "Robinwbruce at aol.com" <Robinwbruce at aol.com>
To: barry_roth at yahoo.com 
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Vital study of an organism on planet Earth
  

 
'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
>