Published December 31, 2016
| Version v1
Journal article
Open
The Cancer Genome Atlas Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma Collection (TCGA-BLCA)
Description
D., M., ., . ., ., ., . (2016): The Cancer Genome Atlas Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma Collection (TCGA-BLCA). Ecologica Montenegrina 6: 34-36, DOI: 10.7937/k9/tcia.2016.8lng8xdr, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7937/k9/tcia.2016.8lng8xdr
Files
source.pdf
Files
(371.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:849f456ff66e95247b3aff55b3299d28
|
371.5 kB | Preview Download |
Linked records
Additional details
Identifiers
- LSID
- urn:lsid:plazi.org:pub:FF9F456FF66E95247B3AFF55B3299D28
References
- Saveljic D., Jovicevic M. (2015): Popis faune ptica Crne Gore sa bibliografijom. Centar za zastitu i proucavanje ptica. Podgorica. 74 str., 500 primjeraka, digitalni pristup na internet adresi (http:// www.czip.me/images/phocadownload/Popis_faune_ptica_Crne_Gore_sa_bibliografijom.pdf)
- As the authors noted in the foreword, "the list of birds of Montenegro with their statuses and common names contains 348 species, whereas the bibliography of ornithological papers, which at least partially discuss the birds of Montenegro, contains 457 units. The list and the bibliography were published on the 15th anniversary of the Centre for Protection and Research of Birds - CZIP". Authors say: "The first overview of ornithological wealth of Montenegro in the form of species' list was published in the Catalogus faunae Jugoslaviae by SAZU (Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts) in 1973, namely within the list of bird fauna of SFR Yugoslavia.'' This claim is unusual, because the first overview of this kind was done by Reiser & Fuhrer (1896) in their work Ornis balcanica, fourth volume, which analyses Montenegro. Their work, especially the one of Fuhrer, was professionally and competently presented in light of ornithology development and its sources by Vizi & Vasic (1980) i Vasic (1980). It's a pity that the authors circumvented those three mentioned sources. To avoid any doubt: the authors strictly discuss birds at the area of Montenegro and they do not impose other, e.g. historical or geographical limitations which would justify their claim. That is how they wrote down.
- Some general sources, and the sources the authors have despised, are also in bibliographic collision. Thus, on one hand we have some general sources (e.g. Where to Watch Birds in Britain and Europe), action plans (e.g. for Ferruginous duck Aythya nyroca, Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia), monographies (e.g. Greater White-fronted goose Anser albifrons), which in the best case, contain word "Montenegro" with some references. If that is something really important, it should be mentioned with the source. Dozens of action plans were produced in the meantime, and mere notices on a country still do not mean that the source is eligible for including in the ornithological bibliography. On the other hand, though, easily available ornithological sources, which ought to be interesting enough for the bibliography, e.g. Vizi A., Vizi O. (2010): Changes in the Diet Composition of Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus on Skadar Lake (southern Montenegro). - Acrocephalus 31 (144): 21-26, or: Sackl P., Schneider - Jacoby M., Stumberger B. (2006): The Importance of the Tivat Salina (Montenegro) for Migrating and Wintering Waterbirds, Including some Notes on Passerines. - Annales, Ser.hist.nat.16 (2): 267-278. The last one was even personally and digitally delivered to the author. They have also despised even the famous WIWO Reports! Pity, because they contain specific data on birds of Montenegro, rounded with numbers, location, place, species and the observers, among which all glorious names of European ornithology! We must also not either forget the first confirmed breeding of Great Spotted Cuckoo in Yugoslavia (Stumberger B. (1987): Mladic copaste kukavice Clamator glandarius najden v blizini Skadarskega jezera. - Acrocephalus 8 (34):53-55)!
- And again, as a counterbalance, we must unwillingly point to excellently meticulous ornithological history and bibliography by Vizi & Vasic (1980). In their text, mentioned authors demonstrate at intellectual height the division of research history and its results with beautifully organized sources. It seems, that the race between the old and the new ornithological school is nowhere in the surrounding as fierce as in Montenegro. Saveljic & Jovicevic (2015) rushed so much with the copy-paste, that they completely neglected the fundamental principles of uniqueness of source citation. Their bibliography would have been acceptable if the authors explained their own rules. But they did not. Only at the end of the alphabetical order in the bibliography, at authors' names Puzovic and Vizi, some order is noticeable. This is only because, I dare claim, the publications of those two authors are taken by copy-paste method, probably even from the personal digitized bibliographies. Some errors are painful: the acronym of the esteemed institution, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU), is even written in small letters (Canu) and so placed that ultimately, one truly does not know what kind of boat he/she is sitting in.
- However, the matrix, from which the authors have overtaken the taxonomic list of BirdLife International, is dated 14 May 2015, and just after that, the new list of birds and bibliography of Montenegro was published. In a record time. At the same time, alas, the authors included the same taxonomic list, in the bibliography of ornithological literature of Montenegro! Because even such list can be included if a Montenegrin citizen collaborated in its preparation and if Montenegro, as a geographical unit, has been particularly emphasized in the species list text - these are the exact criteria for inclusion or exclusion, which must be clearly and specifically written in the foreword text. If that is missing from the bibliography, then it is just a wilful list of literature.
- Negative critics should be avoided in life. However, when the last straw is put, without hesitation we should say the following: each ornithological review, editor or reviewers should instantly reject such a reckless manuscript. All the more as it represents the sectional view of the ornithological literature of one country. Review of the manuscript was performed by Borut Rubinic. Every Montenegrin secondary school pupil knows that Montenegro has a COBISS system, where the bibliography can be written according to all the rules of bibliographic profession. Contemporary ornithological bibliography of Montenegro undoubtedly deserves a worthy presentation. As long as this is not the case, its usage decidedly should not be advised. The lack of basic bibliographic competences in citation and editing of the manuscript cannot be the excuse for an unsuitable relationship and despise towards people from Montenegrin ornithology and writers of ornithological literature. They should have the honour and glory. Including Prince Danilo, who was lively interested in hunting and birds, and who hunted birds with the famous ornithologist and the founder of Montenegrin ornithology, Ludwig von Fuhrer between 1893 and 1895. What if the crown prince of Montenegro and sources related to him were simply despised by Saveljic & Jovicevic (2015) in their List of Birds of Montenegro with Bibliography?
- Bibliography is about devotion. For only one ornithological reference, for example of prince Danilo, their upstart authors should thoroughly comb the funds of "Archive of Cetinje". If nothing was found there, they should look into the "State Archive of Montenegro", particularly the fund of "Court administration" with its few hundreds of files. It would be essential to examine at least the files for 1893 and 1895. And certainly, browse through the official gazette "The Voice of Montenegrin", available at the site of Central National Library "Durad Crnojevic" in Cetinje. The same is available in PDF form (allows the copy-paste function). Also, on this site we can find "The Bibliography of Montenegro" with names registry, where one could find the data about Fuhrer. And even if nothing is found, what then? One should still endeavour. Dig through Fuhrer's legacy all the way to Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), the legacy of his companions, for instance, the Reiser's legacy in Vienna, search at Maribor, where Reiser had lived, maintain contact with leading researchers in Montenegro, not ignore them, search for hunters' contacts and possible records of prince Danilo, etc. Search everything up and down. Pure researchers' joy! There is no other way to Montenegrin bibliography. Only wrong ways.