[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Scheel and three-letter codes

Darryl Tsutsui wrote:

> 
> I believe Mr. Scheel made a rather bold presumption by requiring a certain 
> modicum of intelligence to handle his masterpiece.  It doesn't take the 
> casual reader long to deduce that this is no ordinary body of work, and it 
> quickly becomes apparent that his notations of species groups, as evidenced 
> by his utilization of 3 uppercase letters encased in brackets, e.g., [ORT], 
> is based up on his fascination with karyotypy.  Scheel decided that with the 
> growing number of species, it was best to further splinter them into species 
> groups based upon chromosome complements.
> 

I am well aware of the reasons for placing N. melanospilus into the N. 
orthonotus group. My point was that I have not been able to find in
Scheel's atlas an explanation or key indicating what the three-letter
code in brackets represents (as used in that book) compared with the 
three-letter code in parentheses. Wright's reply to the message that 
started this thread clearly illustrated that this aspect is a potential
source of confusion.

I wish to make it clear to the list that I have the utmost respect 
and admiration for Scheel and what he did for both the hobby and the 
science of killifish. Any criticism that I have made of his atlas is 
not aimed at him personally but rather at the publishers, TFH. As I 
have pointed out before, the atlas was published some time after 
Scheel's death and the lack of attention to detail almost 
certainly reflects the fact that Scheel was not involved in the final 
editing of the book. By comparison, Scheel's earlier book on Old World 
Killies was a much more polished publication.

> 
> I suppose if one waits long enough, a decade in this case, one could find 
> many faults with any body of work.  It would be very tempting for me not to 
> have a field day in 2010.  Instead, we should be celebrating the man and his 
> work, and leaving out such contemptible labels as "good for it's day", or 
> "good coffee table book", or "poorly put-together"(sic) book from public 
> discourse.
> 

As our state of knowledge advances, much of what was presented before 
becomes dated at best. That does not mean it was "faulty" to begin with 
- it was simply what was known at the time and interpretations based on
that relatively limited knowledge may later be proven incorrect. That 
is normal in the advancement of science. It is, nevertheless, important 
that scientists and hobbyists be aware of such changes. In any case, 
most of my criticism of Scheel's atlas is not directed at the 
scientific content generated by Scheel but rather at the very poor 
editorial standards, for which TFH are responsible

So, if you want to have a field day in 2010, feel free to do so. If you
don't someone else surely will.

> 
> I suppose an arguement could be presented that some people would have an 
> easier time screwing up 3 letters than say, 10.
> 

You won't get an arguement (sic) from me about that.
__________________________________________________
Brian R. Watters
Professor and Head
Department of Geology
University of Regina
Regina, Sask. S4S 0A2, Canada
Tel: (306) 585-4663
Fax: (306) 585-5433
E-mail: Brian.Watters at uregina_ca

---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe