>Well, Marien, I do not agree with everything you said, but clearly
>there is little point in the two of us continuing this discussion.


that would get nowhere on this issue, and for good reason. As Andrew
Rindsberg says, theses are not generally available to workers... in
fact there is no way for workers to even KNOW about the theses, as
basically only the authors and their examiners will know. Also most
theses are full of mistakes and errors of judgement.

A friend of mine who did his thesis on Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary
mollusca of New Zealand let his thesis languish for years (I got a
copy, one of 4 sets... 2 large volumes plus one of plates) , then
tried to get funds to have it published. No luck... until now,
several years later, it looks like it's getting set to be published
in Australia.

It is most unfortunate that theses are not normally published.
However most authors lose interest, or are by then working full-time
and just don't have the time to revise for publication.

So new taxa proposed in unpublished theses remain manuscript names,
and hence unavailable.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<[log in to unmask]>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
_________________________
I want your sinistral gastropods!
_________________________
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?