RE: Computer Access vs. Paper

["Brian R. Watters" <bwatters at sk_sympatico.ca>]

Bob Goldstein wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, I don't think peer review is required under the
> code. That's
> why names published in aquarium magazines are nonetheless valid,
> unless there
> has been a significant change since the folly of Cheirodon
> axelrodi published in TFH was upheld as valid.
>

Bob, you are quite correct in that peer review is not, unfortunately,
required by the Code. I was aware of that and I guess I was letting my own
personal bias on such matters show by inserting those words into my
statement. In my opinion, the Code is not sufficiently rigorous or strict in
this regard because some of the so-called formal descriptions that one sees
these days are rather poor. In many cases their scope and quality could have
been improved enormously by a rigorous peer-review procedure. In fact, by
such a process many would have been summarily rejected.
___________________________________________
Brian R. Watters
University of Regina
Regina, Sask. S4S 0A2, Canada
Ph: (306) 584-9161 (home); (306) 585-4663 (work)
Fax: (306) 585-5433
E-mail: bwatters at sk_sympatico.ca


---------------
See http://www.aka.org/pages/killietalk/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html