>The labels of "good science"/"bad science" are bandied around so much, I
>wonder... who is the enemy here? I've come to hate it the way the botanists
>I've worked with will glibly refer to so-and-so as a "bad researcher". Seems
>the only "good researchers" are the ones they're buddies with personally!
Certainly, there is some correlation. Nevertheless I think there are some
helping criteria for labelling, e.g. it is "bad science" if literature is
cited this "indirect" way:
"Especial thanks to D.Kearns of MO for providing literature of recently
described species of _Pinguicula_ from Mexico."
This appeared under "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS" (BL TURNER, PHYTOLOGIA 76:72, 1994),
however there was no "LITERATURE CITED" (although the editors of PHYTOLOGIA
*are able* to print this!). I (and many other people, too!) am absolutely
not interested from whom he did receive his xeroxes, but rather which
sources he read!
>And so we have "non-botanists" like Taylor and Lowrie and Katterman
>producing the interesting stuff, while "real botanists" can't fund this
>kind of research because it's not expensive/trendy enough!
Here I have two comments:
1. I would not cite TAYLOR and LOWRIE in the same line, their efforts and
achievements being of too different quality. A man who has worked for over
40 years in Kew, and who has read (and understood!) all relevant
literature, seen thousands of herbarium specimens (including all
relevant/traceable types) as well as hundreds of living specimens collected
by himself in the field, and who has updated the world4s knowledge with
numerous scientific publications can hardly be called a "non-botanist". Do
you think this can be compensated or even surpassed by studying Botany for
a few years at the university? I do recognize the "real botanist" by the
work he/she does publish, not by the title.
2. Why do you not mention LINNAEUS, VAHL, DECANDOLLE, HOOKER, BENTHAM,
OLIVER, PLANCHON, DARWIN, BECK, DIELS, HAMET, MCFARLANE, GOEBEL, LLOYD,
TROLL, DANSER, SCHINDLER, EXELL, LAUNDON, MAGUIRE, STEYERMARK, ERNST,
CASPER, HUYNH, OBERMEYER-MAUVE, KONDO, FROMM-TRINTA, MARCHANT and (many)
others? I think they have produced some interesting stuff (and the stuff of
others would have been much less interesting if they had not), although
they were/are (not only by my own standards) "real botanists".
Kind regards
Jan