"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."

If you had taken any high school or college science classes, then you already have training in writing technical papers because scientific papers closely resemble the lab reports most biology, chemistry and physics students have to write. The formats are very similar. Scientific papers, except the really short ones, consist of an introductory section, followed by a section on methods and materials. This is then followed by a results section, in which only the results are presented. Finally a conclusion or discussion section offers the interpretation of the results by the author or authors. This is done so that the results are not colored by the interpretations of the authors, so that other scientists or readers of the paper can come to their own conclusions based on the results. Surprisingly, the conclusion or discussion section of a paper is often the weakest part of many scientific papers. Some authors often do not realize the importance of their own investigations and sometimes even misinterpret their own results. Scientific writing, unlike creative writing, should be concise and devoid of "flowery language." The one difference between lab reports and scientific papers is the Literature Cited or Reference section. This is where one lists the published papers one cited within the report. High school and college lab reports often do not need this section.

"However, if I revised A.Tokar's paper on Eryx jaculus, who should I send it to? And who would be the 'moderators'? Also, if those particular people disagreed, does it make my report wrong?"

Often the referees themselves do not verify the findings of a particular author. They simply read the paper and sometimes judge the validity of the findings from their own experience. Therefore often the author's claims concerning particular morphological characters being found in a particular taxon, though erroneous, are not detected by the peer-review process. Sometimes taxonomic proposals that are based on erroneous observations remain unchallenged until someone actually try to verify these observations. Therefore do not treat the peer-review process as evidence that the facts presented in a paper has been verified by the reviewers prior to publication. If you find that the claims made by an author is erroneous, you can certainly point this out, either by writing a letter to the editor of the journal or try to publish your own findings in the same or in another journal. However, if you disagree with the taxonomic arrangements made by the author because of a difference in philosophy (e.g. cladistic vs. Darwinian) then it is doubtful that your disagreements will get published.

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

When faced with a taxonomic proposal, ask why questions. For example, why did the author make the proposal? Is it because new data shows that an old taxon is polyphyletic? Is it because data shows that a monophyletic taxon is morphologically heterogeneous? Is it because the author is intolerant of paraphyletic taxa? Are the facts presented in the paper accurate? If the facts are accurate, and if an old taxon has been shown to be polyphyletic, then most scientists will accept the proposal. If the facts are in dispute then acceptance of the new arrangement will likely be delayed. If the proposal is based on an intolerance of paraphyletic taxa, then it is likely to meet with great resistence. For example, the lizard family Agamidae is thought to be paraphyletic, therefore Frost and Etheridge proposed that it be combined with the Chamaeleonidae into a single family. The resultant family is heterogeneous and because of the rules of the ICZN, the combined families carry the name Chamaeleonidae. All of a sudden, an agamid lizard that is morphologically similar to an iguanid lizard is now a "chamaelonid" or a "chamaelon." Needless to say, it creates confusion among not only amateurs but also among scientists. As a result, Frost and Etheridge's ideologically based taxonomic proposal found acceptance only among the cladistic fundamentalists. Ten years later, this proposal has been rejected completely since even Frost et al. have accepted Macey's proposal to recognize the Agamidae and Chamaeleonidae as distinct and separate families.

Therefore, it is not always a good idea to follow the latest taxonomic proposals. It is best if one can judge the merits of the proposals personally. If not, it is a good idea to consult the opinions of those who are knowledgeable, either directly or via publications. Ask the knowledgeable not only whether a new proposal is or is not acceptable but also why it is or is not acceptable.

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