/logo.png

Helix 🐌 螺旋

What's the main problem of Thach's work? How can we deal with the colonialism and anti-intellectualism in the taxonomy?

Thach published works on Mollusca without peer review and many articles point out the mistakes ( Páll-Gergely et al. 2020; Sutcharit et al. 2019). Now Thach et al. (2020) use the simple but blurry morphological evidence to show his taxonomic actions are valid. These are evidence-limited and endless arguments. No one can tell which taxonomic actions are wrong only based on morphological characters in the much variable species complex (I don’t think Amphidromus is an independent species). Both of them didn’t use the molecular or phylogenetic methods to persuade each other but only focus on the limited and variable morphology. How can we avoid it in the further malacological studies? And how can we deal with the colonialism and anti-intellectualism in taxonomy?

学术共同体与饭圈

有人抱怨为什么学术圈变饭圈,我想那可能真的不是什么学术圈,而且圈这个东西是闭环的,不如共同体的描述显得开放。

学术期刊与影响因子那些事

朋友圈基本上都是zootaxa被镇压的消息,但是我们不妨从游戏规则本身和公平的角度去思考问题。诚然,zootaxa是个很重要的阵地,并且对于科研经费不足的研究团队很大帮助,但是本文不从此处展开,因为这可能会陷入站在世界中心呼唤爱的陷阱,不能实实在在提出解决问题的办法。