Post by phalaecus on Sept 23, 2016 9:50:59 GMT
I have just received my copy of the new book, for which I have paid 256 Euro. Having paid such sum, I feel to express my opinion freely, and have to say that the book is not worth the price! This, obviously, if the reader is not interested, like me, to deeply know the D’Abrera’s creationist philosophy, which affects the contents of the volume.
I have found literally hundreds of new synonymies. The taxonomical status of the genus Catasticta (which I feel to know) has been sent back at the dawn, even before the revision made by Reissinger on 1972.
D’Abrera reports the definition of science given in Johnson’s dictionary of the English language, as “Certainty founded on demonstration”, so I have presumed that all his taxonomical decisions would have been demonstrated. Unfortunately it is not!
In some cases, even the justification for its synonyms are deliberately specious or based on falsehoods. An example for all. To put in synonymy Catasticta marcapita boettgeri with Catasticta marcapita marcapita, D'Abrera writes (page 208):
Recently, an almost identical but slightly blacker specimen (Peru, ? loc.) has been further separated and described as boettgeri Bollino & Lamas, 2004. With the greatest of respect to my most eminent colleagues - I suggest that they are most probably in error, as they do not appear to have sufficient specimens collected over many years in many other areas, to be able to draw safe conclusions about any natural clinal dispositions (or otherwise) of these most variable and adventurous creatures, and thus their natural taxonomic status.
I wish to underline that we described the new taxon from "Peru, Pasco, Huancabamba, Cueva Blanca, ~ 10°31’S 75°34’W" (I do not understand why he indicates "Peru, ? loc.") based on 28 males (HT and 27 PTs), not on a single “slightly blacker specimen”, and we have compared the new population with 23 C. marcapita marcapita and 187 C. marcapita roberti, so I think that we had “sufficient specimens”. On the contrary I know that in BMNH C. marcapita boettgeri in not represented, and only 5 males of C. marcapita marcapita are preserved, so I wonder how such scanty material was sufficient to D’Abrera to decide about the synonymy.
About Catasticta striata, to justify the synonymy with ssp. jimbura, and perhaps with ssp. batesi, too, D’Abrera states: “I am certain that the two populations ….. are connected by intergrades”. What? Is he certain"? If D’Abrera considers himself a scientist, I believe that his "certainty" is not sufficient to "prove" a synonymy, so he would be obliged to demonstrate his point of view, in accordance with the definition of science given by Johnson.
The book is full of such examples, and one senses that many of the taxonomic positions taken by D'Abrera are induced by his philosophy, which seems so another form of scientism (sensu D’Abrera….)
For the rest, the contents are very similar to the same volume published in 1981, so I think that the purchase of the new work is a useless waste of money.
I have found literally hundreds of new synonymies. The taxonomical status of the genus Catasticta (which I feel to know) has been sent back at the dawn, even before the revision made by Reissinger on 1972.
D’Abrera reports the definition of science given in Johnson’s dictionary of the English language, as “Certainty founded on demonstration”, so I have presumed that all his taxonomical decisions would have been demonstrated. Unfortunately it is not!
In some cases, even the justification for its synonyms are deliberately specious or based on falsehoods. An example for all. To put in synonymy Catasticta marcapita boettgeri with Catasticta marcapita marcapita, D'Abrera writes (page 208):
Recently, an almost identical but slightly blacker specimen (Peru, ? loc.) has been further separated and described as boettgeri Bollino & Lamas, 2004. With the greatest of respect to my most eminent colleagues - I suggest that they are most probably in error, as they do not appear to have sufficient specimens collected over many years in many other areas, to be able to draw safe conclusions about any natural clinal dispositions (or otherwise) of these most variable and adventurous creatures, and thus their natural taxonomic status.
I wish to underline that we described the new taxon from "Peru, Pasco, Huancabamba, Cueva Blanca, ~ 10°31’S 75°34’W" (I do not understand why he indicates "Peru, ? loc.") based on 28 males (HT and 27 PTs), not on a single “slightly blacker specimen”, and we have compared the new population with 23 C. marcapita marcapita and 187 C. marcapita roberti, so I think that we had “sufficient specimens”. On the contrary I know that in BMNH C. marcapita boettgeri in not represented, and only 5 males of C. marcapita marcapita are preserved, so I wonder how such scanty material was sufficient to D’Abrera to decide about the synonymy.
About Catasticta striata, to justify the synonymy with ssp. jimbura, and perhaps with ssp. batesi, too, D’Abrera states: “I am certain that the two populations ….. are connected by intergrades”. What? Is he certain"? If D’Abrera considers himself a scientist, I believe that his "certainty" is not sufficient to "prove" a synonymy, so he would be obliged to demonstrate his point of view, in accordance with the definition of science given by Johnson.
The book is full of such examples, and one senses that many of the taxonomic positions taken by D'Abrera are induced by his philosophy, which seems so another form of scientism (sensu D’Abrera….)
For the rest, the contents are very similar to the same volume published in 1981, so I think that the purchase of the new work is a useless waste of money.