[Taxacom] ubiquist??

[Ken Kinman]

Hi Mark,       No serious confusion for most.  However, ubiquist should probably always be used as a noun, and they clearly used it as an adjective when they said "as ubiquist" in the abstract, instead of "as ubiquitous".  No big deal though.                   --------------Ken 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: mark at mwilden.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 19:22:32 -0700
> To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> Is there a problem, here? Would anyone seriously be confused by this usage?
> 
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Since when did biologists start using the term ubiquist instead of ubiquitous??
> > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046056
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > 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