Re: _D. citrina_
Michael (IFMJC@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU)
Tue, 21 Dec 1993 09:37:18 -0700 (MST)
On Tue, 21 Dec 1993 07:49:49 -0800 Barry Meyers-Rice said:
>
>This whole thing is kind of strange. It seems to me that the critical date
>should be the date the paper was received by the journal (hence the listing
>of the submission date, i.e. "Received 14 September 1989"), although I'm
>not sure if this date would be the date the first version of a paper is
>received, or the date the second version is received (for a refereed journal
>in which the referees asked for modifications). In my and related fields, it
>is customary to distribute preprints until the article appears, at which point
>you distribute reprints. What the devil does it matter when the journal hits
>the streets?
>
The day the journal hits the newsstands is the day the public whips out their
indelible markers and writes up labels to replace the "sp. nova" designation
on THEIR plant from Lowrie.
The day the journal hits the newsstands is the day the public rushes out to
get "Drosera citrina" tattoos; the day public policy is irrevocably altered
by the new nomenclature; the day botanists suddenly see the key to the
phylogeny of the Droseraceae, and hence, all the Angiosperms; the day
physicists surprisingly look on the new classification and grasp the
keystone for the Grand Unification Theory.
...Or perhaps I'm giving Dr. Cheek a bit too much credit...?
:-)
-Michael