[Taxacom] ubiquist??

[Ken Kinman]

   Yes, when they use the phrase "ubiquist species" several times, it could be regarded as a noun in apposition.  However, the phrase "as ubiquist" in the abstract is clearly not a noun in apposition, and thus potentially confusing to some.  But still no big deal.                        -----------Ken

Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
From: mark at mwilden.com
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 20:01:53 -0700
To: kinman at hotmail.com

It could be a noun in apposition.

On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

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
> > _______________________________________________
> >