This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/Keys/bad.key.stuff.txt.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5zGTi6C3VaYJ:www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium/Keys/bad.key.stuff.txt++%22Trillium+Family%22+site:goldsword.com&hl=en
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. |
|
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: trillium family
|
|
ࡱ? >
? ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y R o o t E n t r y F GNX? z W o r d D o c u m e n t ? C o m p O b j ^ tion -- no anonymous nominees. > > Frank Reichenbacher > Frank W. Reichenbacher > Southwestern Field Biologists > > Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:24:40 +1000Reply-To: Murray Fletcher <fletchm@AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Murray Fletcher <fletchm@AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU>Subject: Re: Horrible keysComments: To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.950828085047.549464307D-100000@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Joseph Laferriere wrote:> Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? > Here's my choice: > > Awns often deciduous .... > Awns much more often deciduous .... >My vote goes to any couplet the second half of which reads "not as above"Murray Fletcher NSW Agriculture fletchm@agric.nsw.gov.auDate: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 08:31:06 -0500Reply-To: Richard Jensen <rjensen@SAINTMARYS.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Richard Jensen <rjensen@SAINTMARYS.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible keysComments: To: Murray Fletcher <fletchm@AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU>In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950831112355.25795B-100000@quord.agric.nsw.gov.au>I disagree with Murray Fletcher's view that any couplet having "not as above" is a poor couplet. Some (many, most?) taxa are polythetic entities or are especially variable in individual characters - a simple way to isolate them in a key (rather than following them through all possible leads) is to specify the combination of characters that allows identification. As long as no other taxon in the key has that precise combination of features, then the couplet works, and that's one key to a good key.Richard J. Jensen | E-MAIL: rjensen@saintmarys.edu Dept. of Biology | TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674 Saint Mary's College | FAX: 219-284-4716 Notre Dame, IN 46556 | Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 13:34:34 PDTReply-To: Curtis Clark <jcclark@CSUPOMONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Curtis Clark <jcclark@CSUPOMONA.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible keysDate sent: 31-AUG-1995 Murray Fletcher wrote: >My vote goes to any couplet the second half of which reads "not as above"Even worse IMHO is "not in all respects as above".------------------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Clark Voice: (909) 869-4062 Biological Sciences Department FAX: (909) 869-4396 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Pomona CA 91768-4032 jcclark@csupomona.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 13:50:31 -0400Reply-To: DARBYSHIRES@NCCCOT.AGR.CASender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Stephen Darbyshire <DARBYSHIRES@NCCCOT.AGR.CA>Subject: Re: Horrible Keys>Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever >Published?Maybe not the _most_ useless, but pretty close:38. Joints of leaf sheaths and lamina somewhat pilose . . . . 39 Joints of leaf sheaths and lamina somewhat glabrous . . . 42Stephen Darbyshire darbyshires@ncccot.agr.ca Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 16:46:01 -0400Reply-To: Daniel Janzen <djanzen@SAS.UPENN.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Daniel Janzen <djanzen@SAS.UPENN.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible keysComments: cc: josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU, cmrodrig@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, rgamez@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, apiva@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, asitten@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, emata@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, imolina@quercus.inbio.ac.cr, amatamor@quercus.inbio.ac.cr1 September 1995 PhiladelphiaJoe Laferriere wants couplets? I can beat his example 100-fold over.Standley's Trees and Shrubs of MexicoQuercus (80 plus species):the opening couplet:Acorns take one year to mature Acorns take two years to matureAsclepiܥe # \ u , l , l
= ( T S d = Times New Roman Symbol Arial Arial Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:52:58 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Horrible keysAny nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? Here's my choice:Awns often deciduous .... Awns much more often deciduous .... Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 13:32:34 -0700Reply-To: Benjamin Martin Waggoner <bmw@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Benjamin Martin Waggoner <bmw@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible keys (fwd)>Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? >Here's my choice: > >Awns often deciduous .... >Awns much more often deciduous ....A botanist colleague of mine, Brian Speer, has provided this one, which I am passing on to the greater Internet community:Seed cone generally torn apart by animals .... Seed cone not torn apart by animals ....I rarely use keys and so have no couplets of my own to submit. Now if the prize was for Most Inane Character in a Cladistic Analysis, it would be another story. Any nominees in this category?Ben Waggoner Dept. of Integrative Biology University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 bmw@uclink2.berkeley.edu Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:29:45 -0700Reply-To: "Frank W. Reichenbacher" <swfbtucs@INDIRECT.COM>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: "Frank W. Reichenbacher" <swfbtucs@INDIRECT.COM>Subject: Re: Horrible keysComments: To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>At 08:52 AM 8/28/95 -0700, Joseph Laferriere wrote: >Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? >Here's my choice: > >Awns often deciduous .... >Awns much more often deciduous .... > >C'mon Joe! Give us a citation -- no anonymous nominees.Frank Reichenbacher Frank W. Reichenbacher Southwestern Field Biologists Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 11:10:49 +0100Reply-To: D.R.Morse@UKC.AC.UKSender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: D.R.Morse@UKC.AC.UKSubject: Re: Horrible keys> >Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? > >Here's my choice: > > > >Awns often deciduous .... > >Awns much more often deciduous ....There is a little cited paper by Metcalf which (I recall) contains some similar examples, plus some advice on how to write `good' keys:Metcalf, Z.P. (1954). The construction of keys. Systematic Zoology, 3:38-45.David. -- Dr David R. Morse, Email: D.R.Morse@ukc.ac.uk Computing Laboratory, Phone: (01227) 764000 extn 7571 University of Kent, Direct dial: (01227) 827571 Canterbury, Fax: (01227) 762811 Kent CT2 7NF. United Kingdom Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:00:40 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible keysComments: To: "Frank W. Reichenbacher" <swfbtucs@indirect.com>In-Reply-To: <199508290629.XAA00221@bob.indirect.com>I forget the reference. It's something I remember seeing years ago, probably from the old North American Flora. I omitted the reference on purpose because I don't think it is a good idea to poke fun at people by name.On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Frank W. Reichenbacher wrote:> At 08:52 AM 8/28/95 -0700, Joseph Laferriere wrote: > >Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? > >Here's my choice: > > > >Awns often deciduous .... > >Awns much more often deciduous .... > > > > > > C'mon Joe! Give us a citaadaceae (huge number of species)the opening couplet:Pollen feels waxy to the touch Pollen not waxy to the touchThis was my introduction to real taxonomy in 1963.Dan Janzen>Any nominees for the prize of Most Useless Key Couplet Ever Published? >Here's my choice: > >Awns often deciduous .... >Awns much more often deciduous .... Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 17:17:21 EDTReply-To: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>Subject: Re: Horrible KeysOne of my "favorites" is from Munz--A California Flora and supplement.In the "Umbelliferae", the coupletPlants annual (if perennial, with celery odor and taste). Plants perennial or biennial.I know someone who wasn't sure if the plant was annual. It didn't smell like celery, so she tasted it. It was Conium (poison hemlock). She managed to make it home before she collapsed. She was hospitalized with paralysis for a couple of weeks, and continued to have nerve and muscle problems for weeks after. All she'd done was touch it to her tongue, spit it out and wash out her mouth (it's apparently quite vile-tasting). Any couplet that can kill a beginner by its ambiguity gets my vote for worst.Robin Panza panzar@clp2.clpgh.org Section of Birds Carnegie Museum of Natural History 4400 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh PA 15213 Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:54:49 +22304443Reply-To: Neal Evenhuis <neale@BISHOP.BISHOP.HAWAII.ORG>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Neal Evenhuis <neale@BISHOP.BISHOP.HAWAII.ORG>Subject: Horrible key nominationIn-Reply-To: <v01530502ac70d8edb3fd@[128.227.186.35]>OK, I've seen enough. Here's a tough one to top. From F.M. Hull's (1973) "Bee flies of the world":75. Large or small flies . . . . -- Not such flies . . ..Neal~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Neal L. Evenhuis | tel: (808) 848-4138 Department of Natural Sciences | fax: (808) 847-8252 Bishop Museum, P.O.Box 19000 | email: neale@bishop.bishop.hawaii.org Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-0916 USA | check out the HBS web site below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <a href="<a href="http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/HBS/hbs1.html">http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/HBS/hbs1.html</a>"><a href="http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/HBS/hbs1.html">http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/HBS/hbs1.html</a></a>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don't make any great plans for life --- you'll never get out of it alive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 10:10:54 +0100Reply-To: VELDKAMP@RULRHB.LEIDENUNIV.NLSender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Jef Veldkamp <VELDKAMP@RULRHB.LEIDENUNIV.NL>Subject: Horrible key nominationHow about-. Species mihi cognitae -. Species mihi ignotaeR. Knuth. 1930. Oxalidaceae, in Engler & Prantl, Das Pflanzenreich 95: p. 57, 71, 77, 85, 132, etc. etc.There also seems to be a Dutch field guide to birds, that starts off with-. Bird sings its own name. -. Bird does not sing its own name.This works for birds singing in Dutch only, of course.JeF VeldkampDate: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:01:12 -0400Reply-To: Kipling Will <kww4@CORNELL.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Kipling Will <kww4@CORNELL.EDU>Subject: Keys...When keys constructed so that "not as above" is avoided by multiple occurrence of a taxon in the key the end user may suffer much difficulty if one thinks they know the taxon and wishes to backthrough the key. As has been stated, taxa are often polymorphic and in many cases (at least in beetles) a single character or state does not exist clearly diagnosing a species or higher taxa. However, if clarity can be added by a paralleling, negative couplet-half then authors should include the alternative. Kipling W.Will Dept. of Ent. Cornell Unv. Ithaca, NY 14953 (607)255-1351 kww4@cornell.eduJust looking for the right rock to turn. Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:46:20 -0700Reply-To: "Timothy S. Ross" <rosst@CGS.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: "Timothy S. Ross" <rosst@CGS.EDU>Subject: Keys for the omnicient...It is clear enough from the current discussion of dichotomous keys that one person's "OK key" is another person's "hated key". I offer a couple of my "favorites" from the Southern California flora:From Camissonia (Onagraceae):19. Pollen 25-100 percent 4- or 5-pored.........C. robusta 19. Pollen up to 5 percent 4-pored. 20. Capsule markedly quadrangular in transection. ........................................C. lewisii 20. Capsule not markedly quadrangular in transection, at least in living material. ...(6 additional spp with quadrangular capsules)...From the key to the subspecies of Argemone munita (Papaveraceae): (the entire key is lengthy, so is severely abbreviated here)A. Stems with ca. 0-80 prickles per sq. cm. at 5 cm. below the oldest capsule; leaf surfaces smooth or sparingly prickly. ...(ssp. robusta, with ca. 0-10 prickles; ssp. munita, with ca. 10-20; and ssp. munita x ssp. rotundata, with ca. 50-80 prickles...) A. Stems with ca. 80-500 prickles per sq. cm. at 5 cm. below the oldest capsule; leaf surfaces moderately to closely prickly. ...(ssp. munita x ssp. rotundata, with ca. 80-180 prickles; ssp. rotundata, with ca. 120-500 prickles; and ssp. argentea, with ca. 100-300 prickles...)In the additional leads to subspecies, the word "usually" is used no less than eleven times.Sometimes it is easier to ask for a revelation from God than it is to try and key out your plants with the "best" available key...**************************************************************************** TIMOTHY S. ROSS Sr. Curatorial Asst. RSA-POM Herbarium Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1500 North College Avenue Claremont, CA 91711, U.S.A. (909) 625-8767 ext. 233 FAX (909) 626-7670 rosst@cgs.edu"At the end of a fortnight, I fired myself for willful incompetence." -- Donald Culross Peattie (The Road of a Naturalist, 1941) *************************************************************************** Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 10:39:00 -1200Reply-To: ewan fordyce <ewan.fordyce@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: ewan fordyce <ewan.fordyce@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>Subject: non-exclusive keysForgive me if I have overlooked this thread perhaps better explained in earlier correspondence, but another way to look at keys which include "non-exclusive" or "default" lines is to view the exclusive line as identifying the synapomorphy or autapomorphy for one group, leaving the other line for a paraphyletic mass of taxa still to be explored. An example for cetaceans (whales) might be -*Baleen present: Mysticeti [identifies a synapomorphy for a particular clade - and in this case only the one character is needed] *Baleen not present/ not as above [allows us to eliminate one clade and move on through the key to other key lines, other synapomorphies or autapomorphies, and other taxa]Such a cladistically-oriented key would probably be quite workable to a cetacean systematist. This comment is not meant to suggest that keys must equate directly with cladograms.Ewan FordyceDate: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:50:13 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Re: Horrible key nominationComments: To: Jef Veldkamp <VELDKAMP@RULRHB.LEIDENUNIV.NL>In-Reply-To: <01HUYADG4O5E0003AV@rulrhb.LeidenUniv.nl>I love these following examplesOn Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jef Veldkamp wrote: > > -. Species mihi cognitae > -. Species mihi ignotae > > -. Bird sings its own name. > -. Bird does not sing its own name.How are you supposed to know whether a bird sings its own name if you are trying to find out what the name is? Concerning the first example, I have seen other keys from the early part of this century which seem to be meant to group the species into convenient categories, not meant as a formal taxonomy nor as a thorough identification guide. You may have the nondichotomous arrangementFlowers red Flowers purple Flowers blue Flowers unknownCustoms have changed considerably since these kind of keys were in widespread use. Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 07:33:03 +0200Reply-To: Mr Fortuner connection modem <fortuner@MATH.U-BORDEAUX.FR>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Mr Fortuner connection modem <fortuner@MATH.U-BORDEAUX.FR>Subject: keys are horribleWhile some of the key examples are funny (I love the one about the Dutch bird - but what if the bird makes an identification error and sings the name of another bird?), others demonstrate, once again, that there is more to identification than keys. Going back through a key or using probabilistic ("usually") statements are things that would be far easier to do with other methods: when you calculate a coefficient of similarity, you don't need "not as above" statements and if you want to do backward chaining, use an expert system. Keys are great for eliminating species, but other identification functions, e.g., resemblance and recognition, are just not possible with keys.The other problem I have seen with keys is that their authors tend to follow the classification. You have to use a family key to find the right genus, then a genus key to find the species. This may not work. For example, a nematode subfamily was created some time back by splitting a large genus (Criconemoides) into a dozen genera. This taxonomic decision was justified, but the resulting genera are very difficult to separate from each other because the phylogenetic characters used for defining them are very difficult to observe. Using a key to the genera often results in identification failure. Many identificators use an old key to Criconemoides species, find the species, then find to what genus it now belongs.There is no reason why the identificator should retrace the steps of the classificator, and we should keep separate in our mind identification characters and taxonomic/phylogenetic characters. Some "synapomorphic or autapomorphic features" may be difficult to observe and using such characters may result in identification errors.I have proposed a few years back the concept of "nest of species" based on "primary identification characters", which are characters that are "easy" to record. A nest includes all the species that have the same set of primary identification characters. In my example, the old genus Criconemoides would become the nest criconemoides, with low-case "c" and no italics. The point is that, by definition, nest identification is based on "easy" characters, which means that any moron can do it. Species identification would still have to use secondary (not easy) identification characters, but at least, the identificator would be reasonably sure that he is working within the right group of species. Some species could be eliminated (using the remaining primary characters), then the identificator would have to switch to other methods to find the most probable answer.Renaud Fortuner Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:17:22 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Re: keys are horribleComments: To: Mr Fortuner connection modem <fortuner@MATH.U-BORDEAUX.FR>Comments: cc: fish <fish@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>, lam <lam@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>In-Reply-To: <9509090533.AA06639@ecole.ceremab.u-bordeaux.fr>On Sat, 9 Sep 1995, Mr Fortuner connection modem wrote:> For example, a > nematode subfamily was created some time back by splitting a large genus > (Criconemoides) into a dozen genera. This taxonomic decision was justified, > but the resulting genera are very difficult to separate from each other > because the phylogenetic characters used for defining them are very difficult > to observe. Using a key to the genera often results in identification failure. > Many identificators use an old key to Criconemoides species, find the species, > then find to what genus it now belongs.There are, of course, those who would maintain that genera should not be split like this unless either 1) the existing genus is polyphyletic, or 2) there are readily usable characters available for distinguishing the genera. Genera and families are artificial groupings created for human convenience, having no meaning in nature. We have (correctly, in my opinion) attempted to make taxonomy reflect phylogeny, but many taxonomists have lost sight of the historic origins of the process. Taxonomy is an expansion of European folk taxonomy. People in medieval Europe, like people today, lumped organisms into groups with common characters. They then separated species using adjectives. Botanaists merely latinized the common binomials. Thus, white oak became "Quercus alba" and black oak became "Quercus nigra." In the case of polyphyletic genera, I would agree with splitting regardless of what characters are involved. But a lot of splitting/lumping decisions have to do with the preference of the author, not with phylogeny. For example, the decision of whether the composites should one family with 12 tribes or one order with 12 families is exactly the same thing phylogenetically. The decision is one of preference and convenience. Many taxonomists will concentrate on the differences between species and decide to split the genus on the basis of minor differences. Well, of course there are differences between species. But rather than splitting the genus, one could make distinctions on the genus or section level, not affecting the name of the species. I would much prefer this strategy whenever splitting would not improve the phylogenetic accuracy. Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 18:25:52 +0100Reply-To: "Isidro F. Aguillo" <isidro@PINAR1.CSIC.ES>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: "Isidro F. Aguillo" <isidro@PINAR1.CSIC.ES>Subject: Re: Horrible key nomination>On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jef Veldkamp wrote: >> >> -. Bird sings its own name. >> -. Bird does not sing its own name.Well, I also love this example. As young ornithologist I learnt to identify several species of birds because they sing its own name. So, "Emberiza calandra" sings "tri, tri, tri...guero", its Spanish common name (Triguero=wheat eater).I suppose an adequate new key would be:Bird sings its own SPANISH name Bird sings its own ENGLISH name________________________________________________________________________________ISIDRO F. AGUILLO Programas Europeos Voice: +34-1-5635482 CINDOC-CSIC Fax: +34-1-5642644 Joaquin Costa, 22isidro@pinar1.csic.es 28002 Madrid. SPAIN ________________________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 12:56:04 +1000Reply-To: Jim Croft <jrc@ALBATROSS.ANBG.GOV.AU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Jim Croft <jrc@ALBATROSS.ANBG.GOV.AU>Subject: Re: Horrible key nominationIn-Reply-To: <9509111725.AA14219@olmo.csic.es> from "Isidro F. Aguillo" at Sep 11, 95 06:25:52 pmISIDRO F. AGUILLO wrote:> Bird sings its own SPANISH name > Bird sings its own ENGLISH nameI think we are getting somewhere here - to accommodate the mimetic proclivities of the Australian Lyrebird, we merely have to turn the couplet into a tetret that reads:Bird sings its own SPANISH name Bird sings its own ENGLISH name Bird sings some other bird's name Not as aboveOr for the dichotomous purists:Bird sings its own SPANISH name Not as aboveBird sings its own ENGLISH name Not as aboveBird sings some other bird's name Not as above-- jim Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:14:51 -0400Reply-To: p stevens <p_stevens@NOCMSMGW.HARVARD.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: p stevens <p_stevens@NOCMSMGW.HARVARD.EDU>Subject: The Ultimate KeyThe ultimate in keys is perhaps that by A. F. Carr, Jr.:1941. The fishes of Alachua County, Florida: A subjective key. Dopeia ser. B. 3, part Q. X, n.p. Published by the American Society of Fish Prevaricators and Reptile Fabricators.I have misplaced my copy, but the key includes leads like "Fish with a patently paleozoic aspect", etc. It is a good pamphlet to include as obligatory reading in systematics courses.And talking of obligatory reading: E. G. Voss, 1952. The history of keys and phylogenetic trees in systematic biology. J. Scientific Laboratories, Denison University 43: 1-25.Peter Stevens. Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:41:16 -0700Reply-To: Barbara Ertter <ertter@UCJEPS.HERB.BERKELEY.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Barbara Ertter <ertter@UCJEPS.HERB.BERKELEY.EDU>Subject: horrible keysLet's not forget the apocryphal: "Differs in having a certain indefinable grace that the other is lacking". E. L. Greene, perhaps?Barbara Ertter Univerity and Jepson Herbaria UC-Berkeley Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 10:15:23 -0400Reply-To: Warren Lamboy <warren_lamboy@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Warren Lamboy <warren_lamboy@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>Subject: Bad taxonomic keys -some suSubject: Time:9:24 OFFICE MEMO Bad taxonomic keys -some suggestions Date:28/09/1995To all:I have just begun using a taxonomic key to a group of flowering plants and am dismayed by the persistent use of the couplet:X. Plants with character states x, y, and z. XX. Plants without the above combination of character states.It has been at least 5 years since I used a taxonomic key with which I was not already familiar, and I had forgotten how utterly dreadful couplets like the above are to a newcomer to a taxonomic group.One may rightly ask "What's the problem with a couplet such as the above? If one spends the appropriate amount of time learning the definitions and meanings of the terms used in the keys, then one should have no problems using them. "In theory, of course, this is quite true. A user of a taxonomic key must invest some time in learning the key features of the taxa of interest. Even if one does this, however, there are still problems with keys of the above sort. First, one may not have all of the requisite characters available in a particular specimen (this is hardly the fault of the maker of the key, however!), or the state of the characters may be ambiguous on the specimen. The latter is particularly true with one character that has been a bugaboo for me every since I began working in plant taxonomy: extent and type of plant hairs (to pick a character out of my hat). Such ambiguity is inevitable with continuous characters that must arbitrarily be divided into categories for use in taxonomic keys, without there being any clear dividing lines between them, and with characters that change state with the seasons (such as plant hairs that fall off or are rubbed or blown off during the growing season.).The suggestion I am proposing, which is hardly original but which I think needs reemphasis [the key that is giving me grief is only two years old], is that the possible character states in the second part of the couplet be stated explicitly (and not simply by stating "not x, not y, or not z"!). Although the second part of the couplet may then be considerably longer than the first, a user of the key would have some hope of keying out the specimen if some character states are lacking. If one objects to having a long second half to the couplet, then I recommend constructing a polytomous key, with more than two choices for each entry (although some editors and reviewers would object strongly to such a practice). A nice example of this that I am familar with is the General Key on P. 3 of Norman C. Fassett's "A Manual of Aquatic Plants", where there are 17 entries! I am sure there are other nice examples of this type of key.I am a key-maker myself, and I am aware of the difficulties involved in putting into practice my suggestions. I think that we taxonomists need to be as GENEROUS as possible to newcomers to taxonomic groups and construct keys keeping in mind that many workers will not have all possible character states in front of them for comparison at any one time and that some character states are not as well-defined as those of us who have worked for years on a group might imagine they are. And please, let's all agree to abandon the use of vestiture or indument as a plant character! :-) Good.Warren Lamboy USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resource Unit and Dept. of Horticultural Sciences Cornell University Geneva, New York 14456-0462 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:13:38 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Re: Bad taxonomic keys -some suComments: To: Warren Lamboy <warren_lamboy@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>In-Reply-To: <n1399752134.25893@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Warren Lamboy wrote: > > A user of a taxonomic key must > invest some time in learning the key features of the taxa of interest. Even > if one does this, however, there are still problems with keys of the above > sort. First, one may not have all of the requisite characters available in a > particular specimen (this is hardly the fault of the maker of the key, > however!).Sure, it is! Granted, the user of the key has to invest a bit of time into learning the characters distinguishing the taxa within the group, but the writer of the key/monograph also has a responsibility to write the key so that a reasonably intelligent user can figure things out. Nature does not operate for our convenience; sometimes a person doing an ecological or a floristic survey will be forced to collect specimens that are less than perfect. Writers of keys should realize this and enable the users to figure out the specimen's identity anyway. They should, if at all humanly possible, avoid using obscure characters which they know are difficult or impossible to observe, so long as alternatives are available. I once saw a key separating two genera using the following couplet:Embryo curved Embryo straightThe seeds of both taxa were about a millimeter in diameter. Another book separated the exact same genera thus:Inflorescence a spike Infloresence a panicleWhich would you rather use? Embryo shape might be a more useful character in determining the relationships of these genera to other groups, but inflorescence shape is infinitely easier to determine. Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:51:49 -0700Reply-To: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Joseph Laferriere <josephl@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>Subject: Re: Bad taxonomic keys -some suComments: To: Warren Lamboy <warren_lamboy@QMRELAY.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>In-Reply-To: <n1399752134.25893@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Warren Lamboy wrote: > > A user of a taxonomic key must > invest some time in learning the key features of the taxa of interest. Even > if one does this, however, there are still problems with keys of the above > sort. First, one may not have all of the requisite characters available in a > particular specimen (this is hardly the fault of the maker of the key, > however!).Sure it is! Granted, the user of the key has some responsibility to learn the characters involved, but the writer has the responsibility to make the user's task possible. Writers should know which characters are easy to determine, which are difficult to determine, and which ones the user is unlikely to have available at all. Keys which require, for example, both floral and fruiting characters for species which never have flowers and fruits on the same specimen at the same time are totally useless. Easy characters should be used if at all humanly possible. For example, I once saw a key separating two plant genera using the following couplet:Embryo straight Embryo curvedThe seeds of both taxa are less than 1 mm long. Another key to the exact same genera read:Infloresence a spike Infloresence a panicleWhich would you rather use? Embryo shape may be very useful taxonomically, but is useless as a field charaacter, of even a herbarium character without a great deal of effort. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 09:35:09 EDTReply-To: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>Subject: Re: Bad taxonomic keys>On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Warren Lamboy wrote: >> >> A user of a taxonomic key must >> invest some time in learning the key features of the taxa of interest. Even >> if one does this, however, there are still problems with keys of the above >> sort. First, one may not have all of the requisite characters available in a >> particular specimen (this is hardly the fault of the maker of the key, >> however!). > >Joseph Laferriere responded (in part) > >Sure, it is! [snip] sometimes a person doing an >ecological or a floristic survey will be forced to collect specimens that >are less than perfect. Writers of keys should realize this and enable the >users to figure out the specimen's identity anyway. They should, if at >all humanly possible, avoid using obscure characters which they know are >difficult or impossible to observe, so long as alternatives are >available. I once saw a key separating two genera using the following >couplet: > >Embryo curved >Embryo straight > >The seeds of both taxa were about a millimeter in diameter. Another book >separated the exact same genera thus: > >Inflorescence a spike >Infloresence a panicle > >Which would you rather use? Embryo shape might be a more useful character >in determining the relationships of these genera to other groups, but >inflorescence shape is infinitely easier to determine.This argument is self-contradicting. The very fact that a particular specimen is damaged is exactly why the key's creator cannot hope to make a key for all uses. Granted, inflorescence shape is more likely to be of use on future identifications. Granted, if seed and inflorescence are both available, the latter would still be easier to use. However, if I had to do an environmental survey right now (fall, around here), I couldn't possibly identify this plant based on inflorescence shape. I would be better off with the embryo character.Insects often have antennae or legs broken off; birds may be shot from too close and have severely-damaged or blood-stained areas that are critical to ID; Plants may lack characters at certain seasons; in many bird species, the immature stage (or several stages) look quite different from a full-adult (and internal anatomy in birds is rarely of use at the species level); sometimes we need to identify a fragment (such as in stomach contents or pieces that may have been collected illegally); no key can possibly cover all contingencies.A good key will concentrate on characters that are usually present and easy to see. However, if my particular specimen lacks parts, that's not the writer's fault.Robin Panza Section of Birds panzar@clp2.clpgh.org Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh PA 15213 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:53:59 -0500Reply-To: Richard Jensen <rjensen@SAINTMARYS.EDU>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Richard Jensen <rjensen@SAINTMARYS.EDU>Subject: Re: Bad taxonomic keysComments: To: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>In-Reply-To: <00997369.A9C439A0.4@clpgh.org>I agree with Robin Panza. As a writer of keys, it is not my fault if someone doesn't collect specimens properly and I can't be expected to take into account all possible incomplete specimens. That's why we write descriptions - use the key as best possible for the incomplete specimen and then compare your material with the full descriptions of the possibilities.Richard J. Jensen | E-MAIL: rjensen@saintmarys.edu Dept. of Biology | TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674 Saint Mary's College | FAX: 219-284-4716 Notre Dame, IN 46556 | Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 10:39:27 +0100Reply-To: Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@BANGOR.AC.UK>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Wolfgang Wuster <bss166@BANGOR.AC.UK>Subject: Re: Bad taxonomic keysComments: To: Robin Panza <panzar@CLPGH.ORG>In-Reply-To: <00997369.A9C439A0.4@clpgh.org>On Sun, 1 Oct 1995, Robin Panza wrote: > Joseph Laferriere wrote: > >available. I once saw a key separating two genera using the following > >couplet: > > > >Embryo curved > >Embryo straight > > > >The seeds of both taxa were about a millimeter in diameter. Another book > >separated the exact same genera thus: > > > >Inflorescence a spike > >Infloresence a panicle > > > >Which would you rather use? Embryo shape might be a more useful character > >in determining the relationships of these genera to other groups, but > >inflorescence shape is infinitely easier to determine. > > This argument is self-contradicting. The very fact that a particular specimen > is damaged is exactly why the key's creator cannot hope to make a key for all > uses. Granted, inflorescence shape is more likely to be of use on future > identifications. Granted, if seed and inflorescence are both available, the > latter would still be easier to use. However, if I had to do an environmental > survey right now (fall, around here), I couldn't possibly identify this plant > based on inflorescence shape. I would be better off with the embryo character. [snip]Surely the answer to this is obvious: all characters which can discriminate between the two species should be included in the key. In the case of Joseph's taxa, include both embryo shape *and* inflorescence shape. That way, you get an all-weather, all-seasons key. The same should apply to any other organisms - include several different characters, including those easiest to use, as well as some which are likely to remain present even if the easier character are destroyed or absent for seasonal reasons.-- Wolfgang Wuster School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK e-mail: bss166@bangor.ac.ukThought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, it is probably a train coming your way. Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:02:38 CSTReply-To: SERVANDO CARVAJAL <scarvaja@FOREIGNER.CLASS.UDG.MX>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: SERVANDO CARVAJAL <scarvaja@FOREIGNER.CLASS.UDG.MX>Subject: taxonomic keysIn his communcation Warren Lombay wrote: "...and please, let's all agree to abandon the use of vestiture or indument as a plant character..."That is not possible, as a result of many years working with the Mexican species of Ficus L. (Moraceae), I found that exactly this one character that halp to identified at the level of species. v.gr. Ficus goldmanii Standley and F. horaliae Carvajal looks like the same species, but the pubescence in F. horaliae composed of long single white hairs and small capitate "glandular" red hairs (this realible at 150X), further more other diagnostic characters made possible to separate it as a differente species. But my observations are not new, at the end of the last century, Sereno Watson, on the basis of the pubescence described some new species (F. radulina, F. jaliscana and other), but subsequent monographers (Standley 1917, and 1923), not considered as a suitable character. Nevertheless my findings had demostrated that in Ficus this a strong and useful character. Of this I am not sure what occurs with other groups of plantsServando Carvajal Instituto de Botanica Universidad de Guadalajara Jalisco, Mexico. tel: (3) 682-0003 e-mail: scarvaja@foreigner.class.udg.mx Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:18:46 GMTReply-To: Charles Hussey <cgh@MAILSERVER.NHM.AC.UK>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>From: Charles Hussey <cgh@MAILSERVER.NHM.AC.UK>Subject: Bad KeysApologies for yet another, but....When I was working in the Wonderful World of Parasitic Worms I often had to contend with the following:8. Males absent 9.Males present 12.Actual example is from a key to genera of Mermithidae (Nematoda) published in the UK. Naturally, it is less than helpful if you have only a female specimen to identify. Charles Hussey, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)171 938 8921 [Direct Line]; Fax: +44 (0)171 938 9158 JANET: cgh@uk.ac.nhm INTERNET: cgh@nhm.ac.uk O P Q R S m n V W ; < ` a b 6 7 8 h i ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8i j k l ) * h i
! N O p q 4 5 6 ??? ??? _ ` a b c ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8 W X w x t u v w x / 0 h i A B C 0 1 2 j k l m n " ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8" # X Y x y K? L? ~? ? ? ? ? ? L M N < = y z ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8 % & v w Q R ! ! ?! ^! _! `! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " !" "" 6" 7" 8" s" t" u" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8u" " " " " " " R# S# T# U# V# # # # # # # +$ ,$ K$ L$ M$ $ $ $ $ $ $ % % % ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' G( H( ???( ( ( ( ( ( ( E) F) G) ) ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8) ) ???) ) ) ) <+ =+ >+ %, &, ', (, ), U, V, , ???, , , - - 3- 4- 5- >- ?- @- p- q- r- - - - %. &. '. f. g. h. . . . . . . . . . .
/ / [/ \/ / / / ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8/ / / 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 L2 M2 |2 }2 2 2 2 2 %3 &3 '3 3 3 3 4 4 4 W5 X5 Y5 5 5 5 7 7 7 K8 L8 M8 8 8 8 9 9 9 : : : : : : : !; "; r; s; ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8s; ; ; ; ; ; [= \= ]= > > > >? ?? @? L? M? N? O? P? |? }? ? ? @ @ C@ D@ m@ n@ @ @ @ @ @ A A A A A A +C ,C -C dC eC fC C C C C C C C 2D 3D D ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8D ???D D D D D D G G G dJ eJ fJ K K K O O O %O &O 'O (O )O VO WO O O O O P P AP BP P P P P Q Q Q IQ JQ KQ ZS [S \S Y Y Y Y Y Z Z BZ CZ Z ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8Z Z Z Z Z Z Z j[ k[ l[ W\ X\ Y\ \ \ ???\ \ \ \ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ^ -^ .^ a^ b^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ _ `_ a_ _ ???_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ` ` ` ` ` ` ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8` a a a Ia Ja Ka wa xa ya a a a a a a a a a b ?b jb kb b b b b b b b b c c c gd hd id e e ?e )e *e +e ,e -e Ze [e e e e e )f *f Ef Ff Gf f ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8f f f g g g g g 5g 6g zg {g g g h h :h ;h <h h h h h h h i i i ???i i ???i Mj Nj Oj 9k :k ;k o o o r r r u u u u u u u u u u u u Fv Gv ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8Gv v ???v v v v v /w 0w 1w x x x { { { { { { b| c| d| | | | Y} Z} [} \} ]} } } } } ~ ~ Q~ R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 7 8 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8 p??? q??? r??? s??? t??? ??? ??? ??? ??? I J n o p Ɍ ʌ ˌ % & [ \ 4 5 b c d ϒ В ђ o p ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8p q r s ӓ ԓ $ % X Y } ~ ؔ ٔ ڔ O P Q L M N ' ( ) * + U V * + G H I ֝ ם ؝ ~ = > ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8> u v Ƣ Ǣ 9 : ; ɣ ʣ ˣ T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] P R S n W < a b 7 8 i !i j k l * i
! O q 5 6 ??? ` a b !b c X x u v w x 0 i B C 1 2 k l !l m n # Y y L? ? ? ? ? M N = != z & w R ! ?! _! `! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !" "" 7" 8" t" u" " " " " S# T# U# V# # # # ,$ L$ M$ $ $ $ $ % % '
' ' ' ' !' ' ' ' H( ( ( ( ( F) G) ) ???) ) ) =+ >+ &, ', (, ), V, ???, , - 4- 5- ?- @- q- r- - - &. !&. '. g. h. . . . . . . . / \/ / / / 1 1 2 2 2 2 M2 }2 2 2 &3 '3 3 3 4 4 X5 Y5 !Y5 5 5 7 7 L8 M8 8 8 9 9 : : : : : "; s; ; ; ; \= ]= > > ?? @? M? N? O? P? }? ? @ ! @ D@ n@ @ @ @ A A A A ,C -C eC fC C C C C C 3D ???D D D D G G eJ fJ K K O O &O 'O !'O (O )O WO O O P BP P P Q Q JQ KQ [S \S Y Y Y Y Z CZ Z Z Z Z k[ l[ X\ Y\ \ ???\ \ \ !\ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ^ .^ b^ ^ ^ _ a_ ???_ _ _ _ _ _ ` ` ` ` a a Ja Ka xa ya a a a !a a a a ?b kb b b b b b c c hd id e ?e *e +e ,e -e [e e e *f Ff Gf f f g g g g 6g !6g {g g h ;h <h h h h h i i i ???i Nj Oj :k ;k o o r r u u u u u u u u Gv ???v v v !v 0w 1w x x { { { { c| d| | | Z} [} \} ]} } } ~ R~ ~ ~ 7 8 ! q??? r??? s??? t??? ??? ??? J o p ʌ ˌ & \ 5 c d В ђ !ђ p q r s ԓ % Y ~ ٔ ڔ P Q M N ( ) * + V + H I ם ؝ ! > v Ǣ : ; ʣ ˣ U V W X Y Z [ \ \ S \ d u A K ? @ ? Normal a " A@ " Default Paragraph Font @
F Microsoft Word 6.0 Document
MSWordDoc 9q