>>If someone decides to revise a particular taxon, they write a paper....then...
>>
>>firstly how does it get published? Who do they have to go to? What happens then, does it get reviewed or just deemed correct??

The normal procedure would be to publish any taxonomic revision in a peer-reviewed journal. In this case, the manuscript gets sent to the editor of the journal, who then identifies two-three other researchers with expertise in the taxon under study and/or the methods used. The manuscript is then sent to them, and they write a report on the paper, which will point out any flaws and make suggestions for improvements, and a recommendation to the editor, which can be along the lines of "accept as is" (rare), "accept subject to minor improvements", "reject but invite resubmission of considerably modified manuscript" (which is then reviewed again to ensure that the necessary improvements have been made), or outright rejection. The editor would normally study the reviewers' reports and recommendations and plump for one of these options.

>>If a paper is published and is released, does it make it right? What about the papers before that?

No paper changes biological reality. If a paper is based on convincing evidence, then most workers in the field will accept it, if it is weak (due to poor methods, sampling, interpretation, whatever), then most won't. There is no strict obligation to accept any published paper - anyone is free to reject teh conclusions. However, doing so without good reason and without new evidence tends to leave you in a small minority if the paper was sound in methods and conclusions.

>>For example, A.Tokar was the last person to write a paper on Eryx jaculus. I wholeheartedly disagee with him, and I feel he has not looked at the specimens from such a broad range. I currently keep several jaculus sp. of differing ranges, and at a minimum they deserve subspecies recognition, if not full species. So....does it make it right?

Like I said, it does not change biological reality. However, the question is, what other evidence is available that contradicts his paper? Even if his paper was not brilliant, its conclusions will probably be accepted if nothing better has been done. On the other hand, in other cases, a number of authors do good work, but disagree in their interpretations, so in that case, one may not be followed by the majority.

Hope this clairifies.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]