[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Single origin for venoms of Toxicofera: now officially published
David Marjanovic (email@example.com) wrote:
> > I think this came up as a result of hesitation when Fry et al.s
> > pre-published their
> > results, and a later, yet fully published, paper presented their results
> > in a
> > more phylogenetic perspective, replete with taxonomy.
<That is a completely different paper. The one in today's Nature doesn't
include any names like Toxicofera; it describes the venom and the venom glands,
not the phylogeny.>
I was quite sure my comment of "[A]nd a later, yet fully published, paper
presented their results in a more phylogenetic perspective, replete with
taxonomy." I do not think I was confused about which paper was involved.
<Well, now it is clear :-)>
Uh, I do not think so. I made a point that prepublication dates and paper
publication dates were both available, and my comments in regards to papers
that have previously done this with issues of priority of dates should have
made this clear. _Nature_ has NOT responded to my query about the validity of
which date for which names, and it is THIS I was referring to. The subsequent
publication and the date attached referred to the date of THAT publication, and
this I never contested.
<That was Science, not Nature.>
I mentioned *Dakosaurus andiniensis* not to talk about _Nature_ but in
extension of discussing the OTHER journals that have pre-published
nomenclature. I thought this was also clear.
Jaime A. Headden
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around