Academia's blockchain-like pyramid of citations is charming, IMHO. The researchers who matter, know what's going on. Citing these bozos, would be a pretty good bozo indicator in and of itself.
Academia's blockchain-like pyramid of citations is charming, IMHO. The researchers who matter, know what's going on. Citing these bozos, would be a pretty good bozo indicator in and of itself.
It's not so much about always turning up with a scientific name. The whole effort from doctor-patient communication, to animal control, to the production, supply and procurement of specific antivenins, needs to be conducted within as stable and precise nomenclatural framework as possible.
Snakes are just one example here, there are many examples of research programmes being derailed by faulty taxonomy, with big impacts on everything from crop production to theoretical work in ecology.
How is taxonomy going to help you if you don't get enough identification time and don't have enough herpetology to identify the snake's species and genus in the first place? The vast majority of people don't use taxonomic terms: "Doctor, can you help me? I have a canis familiaris bite..."
If you have absolutely no information about what bit you, diagnostics look at habitat, bitemark characteristics, venom reaction, and of course serological tests / enzyme immunological assay can be conclusive. Taxonomy is critical generally, if the patient doesn't have an ID it's not as if taxonomy becomes irrelevant.
Here's an example: I keep multiple tarantulas as pets (yes it's a thing). If I got bit by one that has medically significant venom, I'm 100% going to tell the ER exactly what species it was with it's scientific name (all are kept in labeled enclosures).
Also replying with a string of expletives, and "heaps of bloody merit", is so Australian it's practically charming.
You do know that good researchers frequently cite other research while discrediting it, right?