tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post8508677459779219385..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: The Saga of Forsteropsalis fabulosaChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-81591675138505660442012-02-28T21:08:38.746+08:002012-02-28T21:08:38.746+08:00Things can also get a bit fuzzy when dealing with ...Things can also get a bit fuzzy when dealing with 'ambiregnal' taxa that different authors may treat under different codes.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-29728573615863687692012-02-28T21:06:19.056+08:002012-02-28T21:06:19.056+08:00Andreas is correct. There is also, I believe, a ru...Andreas is correct. There is also, I believe, a rule in the Prokaryote Code that a bacterial genus cannot have the same name as a pre-existing Zoological or Botanical genus. However, I know of a few cases of bacterial names that seemingly break this rule, so I'm not sure how it applies (perhaps it only applies to bacteria named after a certain date?)Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-51390215749511579512012-02-28T20:51:52.985+08:002012-02-28T20:51:52.985+08:00Wasn't it that two taxa in Zoology can't h...<i>Wasn't it that two taxa in Zoology can't have the same generic name? (I know this doesn't apply to genera in different kingdoms, but...)</i><br /><br />IIUC, the issue isn't so much different kingdoms as different nomenclatural codes. You can have a ICZN name identical to a ICBN name, but you can't have, say, one plant and one alga with the same name because both are under the ICBN.Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-72228307382653824652012-02-25T08:08:33.247+08:002012-02-25T08:08:33.247+08:00The other Macropsalis is the reason why Macropsali...The other <i>Macropsalis</i> is the reason why <i>Macropsalis fabulosa</i> isn't called <i>Macropsalis</i> any more: the harvestman genus <i>Macropsalis</i> was re-named in 1923 to remove the conflict with the older nightjar genus. Which means, interestingly, that in 1932 Phillipps and Grimmett were assigning their new species to an already obsolete genus name. Presumably this reflects the lower availability of a lot of information in the 1930s (particularly in New Zealand).<br /><br />My personal preference in describing cases like this, that deal with the history of a species name, is to refer to the species by the original published combination because this provides a fixed reference point and is generally not debatable. Other people, of course, might prefer to use the current combination (which can be problematic if the species' genus assignment is not agreed upon).Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-12966032053938575432012-02-25T06:22:04.093+08:002012-02-25T06:22:04.093+08:00What about THIS Macropsalis?
http://en.wikipedia....What about THIS <i>Macropsalis</i>?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-trained_Nightjar<br /><br />Wasn't it that two taxa in Zoology can't have the same generic name? (I know this doesn't apply to genera in different kingdoms, but...)<br /><br />TEOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-48606826087564960762012-02-23T04:01:15.790+08:002012-02-23T04:01:15.790+08:00The problem is thinking they need any score at all...The problem is thinking they need any score at all. If what you said added to our knowledge and you were able to say it in 2 pages, then good. Knowing your character, if it wasn't worth it, you wouldn't have published.<br /><br />There is a real issue in natural history these days, where so much information is unpublished because it is seen as undesirable to publish short papers. Shame on those who treat this as "padding your CV". That sort of attitude is one of the major things wrong with science today.ZL 'Kai' Buringtonhttp://trichopterology.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-73592208269855473212012-02-22T02:19:31.964+08:002012-02-22T02:19:31.964+08:00Dartian, I love the fact that we are both experien...Dartian, I love the fact that we are both experienced enough in these things to only suggest that it is a contender, not definitely the shortest.Patnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-53331275684470744272012-02-22T02:14:37.669+08:002012-02-22T02:14:37.669+08:00Chris, bean cove, you've screeved a bona fabul...Chris, bean cove, you've screeved a bona fabulosa fakement, don't zsa zsa yourself cos it's pogey.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.larkrisewebservices.co.uk/pdict.php?letter=F" rel="nofollow">Polari Dictionary</a>Patnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-83427536534945816122012-02-22T01:53:48.134+08:002012-02-22T01:53:48.134+08:00Hmm. Great minds and all that...Hmm. Great minds and all that...Dartiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-20229369506545274822012-02-22T01:50:44.112+08:002012-02-22T01:50:44.112+08:00"I do wonder what the shortest scientific pap..."<i>I do wonder what the shortest scientific paper might be?</i>"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/pdf/jaba00061-0143a.pdf" rel="nofollow">This</a> classic paper is surely a contender for that title.Dartiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-3783794798278065042012-02-22T01:47:27.272+08:002012-02-22T01:47:27.272+08:00Andreas, this one is certainly a contender:
Denni...Andreas, this one is certainly a contender:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997" rel="nofollow">Dennis Upper <i>"The unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of “writer's block”</i> J Appl Behav Anal. 1974 Fall; 7(3): 497</a><br /><br />Cited in 2007 by the relatively very wordy <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2078566" rel="nofollow"><i>A Multisite Cross-Cultural Replication of Upper's (1974) Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of Writer's Block</i></a>Patnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-15683645409294209132012-02-22T02:48:25.776+11:002012-02-22T02:48:25.776+11:00Hm. I do wonder what the shortest scientific paper...Hm. I do wonder what the shortest scientific paper might be?Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-44758079763360639542012-02-22T01:33:31.810+11:002012-02-22T01:33:31.810+11:00Nevertheless... One of my colleagues in my departm...Nevertheless... One of my colleagues in my department recently had a monograph published in the same journal. It really does not seem appropriate that my two pages are accorded the same score as his 120-odd.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-12371470768739172952012-02-22T00:51:12.691+11:002012-02-22T00:51:12.691+11:00"I say 'technically' because, at only..."<i>I say 'technically' because, at only one page long (excluding bibliography)</i>"<br /><br />I don't see why a one-pager wouldn't count as a <i>bona fide</i> paper. Nor do I see why one would exclude the bibliography from the total length; it is part of the paper too.<br /><br />Thus, congratulations on your legitimate two-page paper!<br /><br />(As for how much your paper counts in the grand scheme of things, I really cannot say, alas.)Dartiannoreply@blogger.com