mobile - desktop |
Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
|
[ Login ] [ User Prefs ]
[ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Taxonomy Discussion ] [ Reply To This Message ] [ Register to Post ] |
Posted by: CKing at Fri Dec 19 00:17:43 2003 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ] It is not a question of whether professionals or amateurs are writing them or whether the papers are published in peer-reviewed journals or not. Many so-called amateur journals are edited by knowledgeable herpetologists, and the papers submitted are quality checked as well as high quality. Regardless of where a paper may be published, sometimes the material on which a new taxon is based is so poorly preserved or fragmentary (in case of fossils) that it is difficult to determine whether the names attached to such material is valid or not. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ] | ||
>> Next Message: RE: Evidence supports taxonomic changes - ScottThomson, Mon Dec 29 03:59:46 2003 | ||
<< Previous Message: RE: Evidence supports taxonomic changes - wulf, Thu Dec 18 06:59:15 2003 |
AprilFirstBioEngineering | GunHobbyist.com | GunShowGuide.com | GunShows.mobi | GunBusinessGuide.com | club kingsnake | live stage magazine
|