>I've just started reading Eisenhour's dissertation. He raises _M. hyostoma_
>to species level in his disseration...
That's my point. Dissertations aren't considered "published" material
appropriate for formal taxonomic recognition under the ICZN.
>... I suppose that by publishing it in Copeia it may be accepted as a new
>species; also Brooks Burr was chair of his >doctoral committee that
>approved his research, so that would seem to >lend weight to it.
M. tetranema, yes. M. hyostoma, no. To say that just because Brooks was his
PhD advisor that everything must be OK is not appropriate, either- that's
what the whole peer-review process is for. All of us botch stuff once in a
while.
>As to the PCA, if he did what you say, using means instead of raw data, I
>would say that's an argument for Copeia to bite the bullet >and hire a
>statistics editor like _Ecology_ or other journals.
He did that in his dissertation, but corrected it in the Copeia article (it
probably got caught in review). There are some rather stat-savvy reviewers
that Copeia sends stuff to... (not me! :)
cheers,
Dave
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org