It takes a fuzzy mind,
to sing a fuzzy song . . .
. . . as the old country song might be adapted here . . .
"Good" taxonomy first led us to Leymus, then to Elymus, then back to Leymus.
I've never looked this up, but (puff, puff) continue to preserve and
propagate as much confusion as I can by including the history and citing the
latest authority I have used (not necessarily the most recent one, but at
least it is dated). Readers! Mount your search engines!
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] errors in ecology due to bad taxonomy
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the problems caused by good
taxonomy. I don't do much work on the species level, but from time to time
a
species I have worked on gets reclassified and this can lead to real
confusion. Fortunately search engines seems to be able to cope with
this --
I just did a search on the toxicology of Monochrysis lutheri and was
pleased
to see my paper on Pavlova lutheri pop up on the top of the list even
though
the word "Monochrysis" does not appear anywhere in the paper. Still, I am
not sure whether changing the names of species may lead to problems in
tracking down earlier work.
Bill Silvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3170 - Release Date: 10/01/10
06:34:00
