Alexander Pieh wrote:By the way I would prefer to discuss taxonomy via e-mail. I believe the forum is the wrong place.
As far as I can remember, noone has ever complained about having discussions like that in this forum.
Some where quite long, sometimes even quite "sharp", but never uninteresting and/or useless.
After all, that's what we have here the "Theoretical Section" for - in order not to "pollute" (or "dilute")
the field reports with "too much" (?) theory.
But certainly noone will press you into that if you personally dislike it.
Dear Bero,
I can´t follow you.
What HD wanted to say was:
The view is taken that it could be interpreted as a subspecies of T. hermanni - not as a Species.
Dear Alex,
I'm no mind reader and I don't know what H.-D. WANTED to say, nor do I feel obliged to guess myself what
anybody wanted to say, but actually didn't. Sorry. (Well, I'd take that trouble for an intimate friend or a
a woman I'm dying for, but not in a scientific paper.) So, I've carefully read 10 times what he DID WRITE,
and I don't like it at all. I'm willing to explain why, either here (if you agree) or in private (if you insist).
But it has nothing to do with "valid or unvalid", for me the problem lies in the logic of the argumentation,
AS WRITTEN in the paper. And I have the impression that up to now you've interpreted a single (but key!)
sentence of it in two quite different senses... within two days. Correct/forgive me if I'm wrong. And please,
take no offence. That would lead us nowhere.
Has a subspecies taxon within a subspecies complex to be related next to the nominotypical form
according to your view? & c.
No. I can only suppose/hope Jeroen would agree. After all, the question was directed at him, not me.
Anyhow, I'm ready & willing to explain, see above.
Of course, when it comes to any friendly help regarding fieldwork, if I can be of any help, I'm always here.