I disagree strongly with your biologist friend. In zooarchaeology one
cannot take for granted that published standards and references are
known by everyone, particularly as many are in German and French and
some in Russian and Polish. In addition, there are differences of
opinion and difference in nuance between publications that can be
important. As far as comparative collections are concerned, if you
consult only one collection you may be missing considerable variation
which can be important when dealing with morphologically similar
taxa. I teach my students that it is essential to state on what bases
they are making identifications including the comparative collections
used and published texts employed. Only that way can the reader
evaluate from their perspective the quality of the work. Richard
Meadow
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|