JohnsonK at Coudert.com
Tue Mar 12 15:39:36 EST 2002
Just a note to all who have had some negative reaction to, or noted obvious
regional synonymic or identification errors in, the recent paper paper on
Strymon by Robbins and Nicolay in the J. Lepid. Soc. Carla Penz, the editor
at J. Lepid. Soc., has replied that she's aware of the complaints about that
paper and, as a matter of just open door policy at the J. Lepid. Soc. (DON'T
mistake with this being an "official" invitation, it's not) she invites
contributions concerning those errors. She is in an odd situation (as any
editor would be who is getting complaints) as you can imagine.
Perhaps a multi-authored response, by various parties, pointing out obvious
errors in their regions would be the best way to go. It would seem to me
that after an introductory note about the overall subjectivity of genus and
species in ANY taxonomic endeavor (lumping, splitting, mega-lumping,
mega-splitting etc.), one would need to then go directly to obvious errors
in the synonymic list. These would include objective errors like (when id's
or synonymies don't agree with the type material, life history, or rearing
data etc. [esp. published data or situations well known to local workers] or
when synonymies are of taxa that are actually not even closely related [e.g.
non-monophyletic sets] but perhaps have simply placed in synonymy there by
misidentification etc.). We should invite others who see problems in their
regions also to chime in. No rush. But, if you are regional worker who has
noticed obvious errors, please let me know of these so that I can see what
others are thinking about doing.
Dr. Kurt Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Leps-l