Valuable research or short stories: What makes the difference?

Abstract

Accurate communication of scientific research about biological entities is critically dependent on correct identification and naming of the entities involved. This is not a simple task, particularly in a group such as the Triticeae in which there are still many taxa whose limits are only poorly understood. Even if the names used are appropriate at the time a study is completed, subsequent research may lead to a change in the boundaries of some of the entities involved, and consequently in their nomenclature. These factors make it critically important that the identity of the biological entities studied be documented by the preparation of voucher specimens. Voucher specimens enable others to understand the meaning of the names as used by the authors of the paper and maintain the value of the research, even if the systematic framework prevailing at the time of the research is altered. Failure to make voucher specimens can reduce potentially valuable research reports to nothing more than short stories of questionable credibility or, worse, misleading stories. Examples are provided in which voucher specimens extended the longevity of a paper, and others in which the value of a paper was minimized by the lack of voucher specimens.