From: DARBYSHIRES@NCCCOT.AGR.CA (unknown)
To: as673@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Subject: Re: [cp@opus.hpl.hp.com: CP digest 81]
Date: Thu, 25 Aug
Mario,
Thanks for the files you sent. Laugh at Billie Turner, no, but laugh
at the consternation he causes, yes. Billie Turner is well known to me
and at one point was running the journal that he published in (i.e.
Phytologia). Billie is a splitter of renown. Fortunately he works
mostly with composites, so I dont have to deal with his stuff. The
journal, Phytologia, is known as a journal were a lot of substandard
stuff gets published (in fact I have published in it myself). It
is very fast in getting things into print, but has VERY lax review
policies. I have a comment on the terminology used in these comments:
Billies names (although I haven't seen the article) are undoubtedly valid.
He has published too much not to know how to publish VALID names. The
business of "valid" species is just a poor choise of words. As there
is not clear-cut deffinition of what a species is, there are no criteria
to determin whether something is "a valid species". There are however
oppinions as to whether a population (or group of populations) with
a suite of traits (genetic composition) is worthy of the rank of species,
or subspecies, or variety, or nothing at all. I have many colleagues
with whom I disagree about the recognition of variation patterns into
formalized and ranked taxa, but I do respect their opinions. If the
name is validly published it must be dealt with on grounds other than
character assasination.
It is kinda perversely fun to see the squabbling.
Certainly I would say it is very bad form not to cite any literature.
It is also a hell of a lot easier to describe a new species than to
check the literature for a plant's earlier description. Still, the
*names* are valid, and the species are "valid" in someone's opinion.
Naming new species with descriptive names is encouraged, but the
original author can make up whatever name they want. When plants
are named after people these days it generally the collector or
someone who has worked extensively on that group of plants.
I do know one scientist, grEatly respected and excellent abilities,
who named a species after his wife. Maybe not the best thing to do
but it was his right to use whatever name he wanted.
Stephen Darbyshire