| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Thanks for the discussion. Made me review some of my own abstracts, :-).
Below are two recent examples, one with one without "is described".
Quoting part of Landes (1951) again.
"It should not be a mere recital of the subjects covered, replete with such
expressions as "is discussed" and "is described." It should be a
condensation and concentration of the essential qualities of the paper."
I agree, these terms are (almost) always avoidable (also in my first
example) and the alternative generally better. But Landes speaks of abuse
("replete with..."). Should one turn that into a matter of black or white?
Have fun,
Niko
Example 1)
Early ontogeny of Jurassic bakevelliid bivalves and their
bearing on bivalve evolution
Larval and earliest postlarval shells of Jurassic Bakevelliidae are
described for the first time and some complementary
data are given concerning larval shells of oysters and pinnids. Two new
larval shell characters, a posterodorsal outlet and
shell septum are described. The outlet is homologous to the posterodorsal
notch of oysters and posterodorsal ridge of
arcoids. It probably reflects the presence of the soft anatomical character
post−anal tuft, which, among Pteriomorphia, was
only known from oysters. A shell septum was so far only known from
Cassianellidae, Lithiotidae, and the bakevelliid
Kobayashites. A review of early ontogenetic shell characters strongly
suggests a basal dichotomy within the Pterio−
morphia separating taxa with opisthogyrate larval shells, such as most (or
all?) Praecardioida, Pinnoida, Pterioida
(Bakevelliidae, Cassianellidae, all living Pterioidea), and Ostreoida from
all other groups. The Pinnidae appear to be
closely related to the Pterioida, and the Bakevelliidae belong to the stem
line of the Cassianellidae, Lithiotidae,
Pterioidea, and Ostreoidea. The latter two superfamilies comprise a well
constrained clade. These interpretations are con−
sistent with recent phylogenetic hypotheses based on palaeontological and
genetic (18S and 28S mtDNA) data. A more
detailed phylogeny is hampered by the fact that many larval shell characters
are rather ancient plesiomorphies.
Example 2
CONSTRAINTS IN THE LIGAMENT ONTOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF PTERIOMORPHIAN
BIVALVIA
A study of ligaments of larval, postlarval and adult shells of fossil and
recent pteriomorphian bivalves leads to following observations and
hypotheses: (1) Ligament growth passively follows the general growth pattern
of the mantle margin. No independent genetic information fixes the anterior,
ventral, or posterior growth direction of the ligament. Further growth
constraints relate to physical availability of space on the ligament area
and to heterochronic processes. (2) The disjunct ligament and the repetition
of fibrous or lamellar sublayers are phenotypic aspects of the same derived
ligament Bauplan 1. All Pteriomorphia possess the ability to produce
repetitive ligaments. This ability and space reductions of the ligament area
in independent phylogenetic lineages are responsible for the iterative
evolution of ligament grades. (3) Spondylidae and Plicatulidae are
duplivincular, and the Ostreoidea are plesiomorphically multivincular. (4)
Larval anterior-helical growth of the soft tissue produces opisthogyrate
shells and possibly caused the evolution of the alivincular-multivincular
grade. Duplivincular-alivincular and multivincular-alivincular grades can be
distinguished if larval shell characters are known. (5) The taxonomic
distribution of ligament grades as amended in this paper is largely
consistent with modern phylogeny hypotheses based on genetic or morphologic
or combined character sets. However, the resolution of early phylogenetic
nodes requires more data on larval shells of Lower Palaeozoic taxa.
------------
previous contributions
------------
> I never accept abstracts as a teacher, reviewer or editor that have "is
> discussed" in them in any context. This tells us nothing, and if you
> discussed it, you can tell us what your discussion included or
> concluded. An author must communicate the contents and conclusions to
> make
> the abstract useful. Landes is right. I give that paper to all my
> students, some reviewers and some authors who obviously need
> it. Remember, that the best research in the world is useless unless it
> is
> properly communicated and people read it. "Is discussed" is poor
> communication, and forces a person to read the entire article if he/she
> thinks it's worth pursuing. Most won't bother. And I don't blame
> them. The author is the loser, not the reader. Write good abstracts,
> whether it is for a meeting or a journal. It takes very little energy,
> although some thought and practice, but it pays off highly.
>
> Jere
>
> At 03:11 AM 11/9/2004, Peter Paul Smolka wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Duncan McLean wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:35:52 +0000
> > > From: Duncan McLean <d.mclean@sheffield.ac.uk>
> > > Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> > > To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> > > Subject: paleonet The nature of abstracts
> > >
> > > Dear Paleonet,
> > >
> > > A recent posting reminded me of many hours arguing with students over
> > what an
> > > abstract should contain. Whenever "is discussed" appears in an
> abstract
> > I have
> > > red flags popping up. I was eventually saved by discovering a largely
> > > ignored(or so it seems) short comment by Landes (1951) which clearly
> > argues the
> > > case for informative abstracts, and to which I would refer you all.
> > >
> > > LANDES , K.K., 1951. A scrutiny of the abstract. Bulletin of the
> American
> > > Association of Petroleum Geologist, 35, 1660.
> > >
> > > Though, as life is short, I have reproduced his abstract below:
> > >
> > > "ABSTRACT The behavior of editors is discussed. What should be covered
> > by an
> > > abstract is considered. The importance of an abstract is described.
> > Dictionary
> > > definitions of "abstract" are quoted. At the conclusion a revised
> > abstract is
> > > presented."
> > >
> > > His conclusion is:
> > >
> > > "ABSTRACT The abstract is of utmost importance, for it is read by 10
> to 500
> > > times more people than hear or read the entire article. It should not
> > be a mere
> > >
> > > recital of the subjects covered, replete with such expressions as "is
> > discussed"
> > > and "is described." It should be a condensation and concentration of
> the
> > > essential qualities of the paper."
> > >
> > > Much current practice indicates that there is another view contrary to
> > that held
> > > by Landes and me. Perhaps some out there in Paleonet Land would care
> to
> > defend
> > > it?
> >
> >Dear Duncan,
> >
> >an abstract contains "the publication in a nutshell".
> >
> >A publication contains one or mor main findings. These may or may
> >not include a methodology.
> >
> >In addition it may or may include a discussion of related aspects
> >beyond the main findings.
> >
> >Referring to these as "is discussed" I regard as acceptable in
> >if above applies.
> >
> >Example:
> >
> >Main Finding: Earth is a sphere.
> >
> >Related aspects: Other models, such as ellipsoid, geoid-undulation,
> >impact of inhomogenities in the earth mantle are discussed.
> >
> >That is: If the related aspects are not the most important for the paper
> >but relevant to readers they might be mentioned so such readers know
> >they should read the paper.
> >
> >Background of this example, formulated with a polite smile:
> >
> >A paper intended for an IT journal, were earth (on a CDROM or DVD)
> >appears to the user normally as discoid.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Duncan McLean
> > >
> > > Palynology Research Facility,
> > > University of Sheffield,
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >Peter Smolka
> >
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >Dr. Peter P. Smolka
> >University Muenster
> >Geological Institute
> >Corrensstr. 24
> >D-48149 Muenster
> >
> >Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
> >Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
> >E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
> >E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
> >**********************************************************************
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
cc: nikolaus.malchus@uab.es
---
Dept. de Geologia/Unitat Paleontologia
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Campus, Edifici Cs
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalunya
SPAIN
---
Tel 34-93-581-1464
Fax 34-93-581-1263
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 ADR;WORK:;;Campus, Edifici Cs;Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès);;08193;Catalunya, Spain EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET;W:n.malchus@gmx.net FN:Nikolaus Malchus LABEL;WORK:Campus, Edifici Cs Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Catalunya, Spain N:Malchus;Nikolaus;;Dr.;; NICKNAME:Niko ORG:Universitat Autònoma Barcelona;Dept. Geologia/Area Paleontologia TEL;WORK;FAX:xx34 93 581 1263 TEL;WORK;VOICE:xx34 93 581 1464 TITLE:Dr. REV:20041111T124424Z END:VCARD
Partial index: