electronic publishing

["David Schwimmer" <SCHWIMMER_DAVID@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting discussion in general, and obviously one without clear 
resolution.  One point I have not heard (or at least not noticed in 
passing) which strongly argues *against* e-publishing in general as 
the preferred (or even optional) mode in systematic paleontology is 
that of synonymy and basic command of pertinent literature.

    Traditionally, we expect authors to have (ideally) complete 
command of the prior literature on any subject which is the basis of a 
new contribution.  Whether or not this is actually done, this 
is the model to which we aspire.    Imagine the added difficulty of 
admixing electronic publications with print format:

(I can just see it now, a future synonymy:
                    
         _Xiphactinus audax_ Leidy, 1870, p. 212, fig. 23
         _Portheus molossus_ (Cope, 1871), p. 45, fig XI 
         _ X. audax_, Weasel, 1996, HTTP://www.taxolist.ggg.edu       
        
        How can one possibly manage an effective inventory of 
pertinent literature without hard copy?  And if so, why bother with 
electronic printing in the first place?

    Here's a test:  how many e-publishing fans  maintain their 
research files on disk or CD? Or even microfiche? I know that I for 
one rely on actual reprints, journals, xeroxes of articles, etc. 
when I'm seriously investigating a subject.  I doubt availabilty 
of data in e-mode will alter my techniques: I will simply transcribe 
the files to literal images and hard copy, and overwork my printers.

Just a revisionist though:
           
           .David Schwimmer
Dep't of Chemistry & Geology
Columbus College, Columbus GA 31907-5645
schwimmer_david@cc.csg.peachnet.edu 

No, I'm not Ross.