racoll wrote:As i said before raglanroad, please be completely unambiguous in what you are trying to get across. I have no idea of the points you are trying to make. It might make sense in your head, but not in anybody elses.
You have offered not a whit of support for your bold assertion. You have no idea what makes sense in others' heads...unless you're..psychic !
OMG A true psychic !
People will soon get tired of this and not contribute
oooohh..prognisticator extraordinaire too.
and to avoid any ambiguity of my part here, that means me.
more for the rest. I can't truthfully say I'll miss your innacurate contributions.
Your scathing criticism of the current scientific community is based on what?
what scathing criticisms of the community ? You are making this stuff up.
Yes, there may be misidentified specimens in the collections, but knowledge moves on, and these mistakes can be corrected.
are you arguing for more mistakes ? hmmm..how do like that kind of silly retort, which you two have been trying to do to me ?
Have you even been to an ichthyology department in a museum or university, or met any curators or scientists? What evidence do you have to be so critical and insulting of such people? Please, name some names.
Oh, the old forum bullcrap. "I've been in the hobby for 185 years, I own a $40,000 koi. What do you have ?" Weakstuff, racoll. You should know by now, if you are so knowlegeable , that much of museum material is stolen. Anyone who does not volunteer to return stolen goods once they know about it, is the equivalent of a thief themselves..especially when they order the thefts and send an agent.
that's the history, and you can be in denial all you like about it, but it changes the facts not a whit.
Regarding the "elite". What do you propose, that every John Doe or Joe Public can go and write a species description and take a few pictures? It takes years of study to become trained in systematics and evolutionary science.
I never argued that every Joe or Jane can do it. One more of your ongoing set of strawmen put in my mouth. Very crude and distasteful way to converse.
The current system of description, nomenclature and voucher specimens is not perfect, but it works.
your point ? "Don't fix what ain't broken" ?
raglanroad wrote:As Heiko and others have noted, many or most museums have mislabeled fish as altum. so as you say, one must hunt through museums and curators to find a real altum and coinciding with that, a non-dink who has a brain. That sucks. It's an impediment. Do you suppose the dinks send their specimens to any old requesting members from the great unwashed public ?
So doing a proper barcoding becomes, in practical terms, a project dependant upon the whims of a possible dink who has the wrong fish in his collection.
No it doesn't. You don't need access to historical museum specimens to carry out a barcode study. You collect your specimen, and then identify it to the best of your knowledge based on the literature. Sure, one could look at the collections if one wanted, but hopefully by that point you would have a good idea of what has been misidentified.
Another demonstration of your inability to comprehend the most basic things. I don't want to look at their specimens. Nothing I have said would indicate that I do.
