[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Selling of scientific names is a fine tightrope to walk, some researchers
have been forced to do so. It is symptomatic of a greater problem.
Traditional taxonomy has been replaced by the menace of cladistics (a
useful adjunct to taxonomy, but no more!), which has diverted research
funding away from primary taxonomy towards the number crunchers.
The number of journals filled with recycled, unhelpful cladistic analyses
is more worrying.
In 100 years what shall palaeos be reading?
Will it be one of the fifty thousand secondary analyses, or a primary
description of a new, even if oddly-named taxon?
Regards to all
Your devils advocate
Dr Alex Cook