I have a new paper in the new Open Access journal Gigascience: GigaScience | Full text | Badomics words and the power and peril of the ome-meme. It is basically a text version of my obsession with #badomics words.
It was inspired by a paper also in this first issue of Gigascience The Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) format or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ome-ome by Daniel McDonald, Jose C Clemente, Justin Kuczynski, Jai Rideout, Jesse Stombaugh, Doug Wendel, Andreas Wilke, Susan Huse, John Hufnagle, Folker Meyer, Rob Knight, and J Caporaso.
For more on my obsession with badomics words see some of these earlier posts:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
A ton to be thankful for -- here is one part of that - all the acknowledgement sections from my scholarly papers
So - it is another Thanksgiving Day and in addition to thinking about family, and football, and Alice's Restaurant, I also think a lot a...
-
I have a hardback version of The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerma n but had not gotten around to reading it alas. But now I am listening to th...
-
There is a spreading surge of PDF sharing going on in relation to a tribute to Aaron Swartz who died a few days ago. For more on Aaron ... -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Just got an email invitation to a meeting. The meeting is " THE FIRST ANNUAL WINTER Q-BIO ...
In the aricle you write:
ReplyDeleteIn 1920, “Verbreitung und Ursache der Parthenogenesis im Pflanzen- und Tierreiche”–a landmark book by German botanist Hans Winkler–was published Translating the title into English yields “Spread and cause of pathogenesis in plant and animal kingdoms”. An interesting book, no doubt (and one that is available to read online thanks to the Biodiversity Heritage Library [2]), but it is not a fascination with pathogenesis that has kept the book in the limelight for almost 100 years. Instead, it is one passage on page 165 that is critical:
Surely, the book is about parthenogenesis -- that is, asexual reproduction, rather than pathogenesis, no? I know that's irrelevant to the point being made but…
that I will assign to "an editing mistake ..." ... gonna have to get that fixed ...
Deletealthough I note my statement is technically correct --- " but it is not a fascination with pathogenesis that has kept the book in the limelight for almost 100 years."
Delete