 |
 |
I think most of us follow Terry here? As someone married to a quality engineer, there's nowt wrong with a bit of QA, as for whether it appears in text and biblio, well that's not always up to the specialist - but at least its in the archive (it is isn't it?!) Sheila ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrienne Powell" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 4:12 PM Subject: references to criteria for identification > Dear all, > > I would like to canvass opinion on something I have > been having a sporadic debate about for sometime now: > the necessity or otherwise for including within a bone > report the references to criteria used to > identify/differentiate species. My > biologist-by-training partner argues that the > published standard keys and references for any > particular case (eg. chicken vs pheasant, red deer vs > fallow deer or Apodemus sp. vs Mus sp.) should be > known to any professional and their use taken as read, > that explicitly stating their use is superfluous and > merely bibliography padding. > > What is the opinion of fellow zooarchaeologists, or > indeed of any biologist colleagues lurking on this > list? > > Adrienne > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! > http://calendar.yahoo.com/ > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%