>>Thank you, that clears up a few things, but I am still unsure of certain aspects.
>>
>>I do not have any experience in the field, and cannot comment on field research, and I am not capable (yet) of writing my own reports. However, if I revised A.Tokar's paper on Eryx jaculus, who should I send it to?

Firstly, you do not revise a paper, you revise a taxon.

Second, if you wanted to revise E. jaculus, that would involve visiting museums and examining additional material and characters, and doing further analyses (note: I have not seen Tokar's paper, so this should not be taken as criticism of it). In other words, you would have to produce new data which shed new light on the systematics of the species.

> And who would be the 'moderators'? Also, if those particular people disagreed, does it make my report wrong?

The moderators would be persons with experience of the taxon and/or the methods you use. The most usual approach would be for the editor of the journal to do a literature search for researchers who have recently published on Eryx and/or used the methods you use. For instance, it is quite possible that Tokar would be asked to comment on your manuscript, if he was the last one to work on Eryx jaculus.

Whether or not your report is wrong depends on what we are talking about. Your methods may be wrong, your interpretation may be wrong, or both. If you used the methods in an inappropriate manner, then that aspect would be wrong, period. If your conclusions are criticised, if would be a matter of deciding whether the criticisms are justified (i.e., your conclusions go beyond what is supported by your data and analyses), or whetehr the disagreement has more to do with personal philosophy and preferences (often the case when deciding on whether something should be a species or subspecies, for instance).

>>Also, if somebody revise's a particular taxon, when does it actually become valid?

As I said, except for the procedure of creating and managing names, there is no such thing as valid or invalid - it is simply a matter of whether the evidence presented in a paper is sufficient to convince everyone else.

The validity or otherwise of new names is governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but this does not regulate other aspects of systematics, e.g., what evidence is required to sink or erect taxa, etc.

>>
>>For example, Candoia carinata sp. has been broken down into 10 different subspecies of Candoia carinata, and Candoia paulsoni. According to the last report anyway. However, nobody appears to be using the new names, and I have not even seen these listed on the highest of authorites boards, such as CITES etc..

These things take quite a while to sink in and CITES in particular tends to be pretty slow in adopting new arrangements. There is no such thing as a "highest of authority boards". If you read the toxinological literature, you would think that no taxonomy on venomous snakes has been done since the 1960s. If you look at the homeopathic literature, you get the impression that nobody has worked on venomous snake taxonomy since the 1860s. In other words, just because a change has not filtered through the entire system, that does not mean that the change is either unwarranted or bad.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]