首页> 外文期刊>Bonn zoological Bulletin >A critical review of Hoser's writings on Draconinae, Amphibolurinae, Laudakia and Uromastycinae (Squamata: Agamidae)
【24h】

A critical review of Hoser's writings on Draconinae, Amphibolurinae, Laudakia and Uromastycinae (Squamata: Agamidae)

机译:对Hoser关于德拉科虫,双翅目虫,劳达基亚和泌尿科的著作的批判性评论(鳞状细胞:A科)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

We analyzed four papers on agamid lizards by self-proclaimed Australian herpetologist Raymond Hoser with respect to the presentation of diagnostic characters as well as their taxonomic and nomenclatural merits. In most cases the taxonomic concepts were lifted from earlier phylogenetic publications and the diagnoses were copied from other authors. Copied text in Hoser's diagnostic section within the analyzed papers amounts to a staggering 83% for Draconinae, 82% for Amphibolurinae, 77% for Laudakia and 78% for Uromastycinae, respectively. We found a number of plagiarized paragraphs, sometimes half a page long. Hoser hardly ever makes any effort to attribute statements to the original author and in some cases he even omitted to cite the relevant source. With respect to nomenclature, we found that Hoser proposed names that were preoccupied or unavailable, that a nomen oblitum was resurrected incorrectly, nomina nuda were produced, a type locality was restricted incorrectly and a questionable holotypewas designated for a new species. With respect to taxonomy, we found examples of wrong diagnoses, falsely attributed species, omission of taxa and a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of previously published taxonomic studies on agamid lizards. Furthermore relevant literature on taxonomy and nomenclature has been overlooked or disregarded.
机译:我们分析了自称的澳大利亚爬虫学家Raymond Hoser撰写的关于蜥蜴蜥蜴的四篇论文,介绍了诊断特征以及它们的分类学和命名学优点。在大多数情况下,分类学概念是从较早的系统发育出版物中提出的,而诊断是从其他作者那里复制的。在被分析的论文中,Hoser诊断部分中复制的文本分别对Draconinae达83%,对Amphibolurinae达82%,对Laudakia达77%,对Uromastycinae达78%。我们发现了许多窃的段落,有时长达半页。 Hoser几乎没有做出任何将陈述归因于原始作者的努力,在某些情况下,他甚至没有引用相关来源。关于命名法,我们发现Hoser提出的名称过于偏爱或不可用,扁圆形的名称被错误地复活,nomina nuda被产生,类型的位置被错误地限制,可疑的完整型被指定为一个新物种。关于分类学,我们发现了错误诊断,错误归因的物种,遗漏了分类单元以及对先前发表的关于蜥蜴蜥蜴的分类学研究缺乏理解或误解的例子。此外,有关分类法和术语的相关文献也被忽视或忽视。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号