On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:29:26 +0000 (UTC),
Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
<snip>
> The question which interests me here more immediately is, can a fishkeeper
> be an ichthyologist or not? If we look at some of the greatest
> ichthyologists, most of them keep fishes in aquariums, although not all as
> their hobby. There are also those who confine their work to examination of
> formaldehyde pickled specimens with a scalpel and a microscope, or who are
> simply collectors and discoverers. There is in the world of fishkeeping a
> large overlap between the amateur and the professional ichthyologist. People
> who collect and explore, like the US's Axelrod or our European Heiko Bleher
> (I have never met the legendary Axelrod but I have met Bleher and watched a
> slide show of his at a catfish convention) also have a tendency either to
> describe new species or present them for description, and museum types do
> tend to get rather upset when this happens, as they believe that they are
> the ones who should be writing the papers and giving the technical names.
I never said that aquarium keepers could not become icthyologists. I never
said that some aquarium keepers aren't more knowledgeable than some
icthyologists. I'm quite certain there are a few people out there without
medical degrees that have a greater knowledge of medicine than my family
doctor.
But let us be honest here. How many aquarium enthusiasts do you think there
are that have a greater knowledge that your average icthyologist?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 |
|