[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
> 3. About two minutes. Fixed the infobox and switched it to the newer
> Automatic taxonomy system which allows the use of any and all labels
> you want, including Clade, Branch, Node, etc.
Very good, thank you -- but not only is there no genus, there's no species
either. There's just "new taxon", and "*Ambondro*" does not seem to be intended
as a clade name. There's just the taxon name *Ambondro mahabo* which happens to
have a space in the middle. Imagine it as the single word "Ambondro%20mahabo".
> > 1. How is it "immoral" to complain about the Wikipedia page?
It is immoral to complain about the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is exactly
as good as you and I make it. It is the moral responsibility of everyone with
Internet access to improve it or shut up.
> > 3. I am not sure how long it would take to "fix" my changes, since I
> > do not actually offer a "controversy," as no author has yet to really
> > raise the issue of *Ambondro mahabo* being a non-genus-species
> > couplet in print for me to cite.
Flynn et al. (1999) themselves did. As Matt said, that's plenty enough. To
claim that *Ambondro mahabo* is a genus + species name is to demonstrably
misinterpret the paper; to demonstrate this, it's enough to cite the paper.