Updating biological reviews: The hastings river mouse pseudomys oralis as a case history

Graham H. Pyke, David G. Read

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

To be most useful, biological reviews should be able to cope with taxonomic uncertainty and change, should be comprehensive with regard to topics and available information, sufficiently detailed, repeatable, easy to keep up-to-date, logical and accurate, should include anecdotal observations, and should indicate the nature and extent of support for each statement concerning a species (Pyke 2001). In addition to collating information, a review should also provide a focal point to which others can contribute new information as it becomes available, thus updating the review. In this way we can all learn and improve our knowledge about a species. We attempted to achieve these goals in reviewing the biology of the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis) (Pyke and Read 2003).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)211-214
Number of pages4
JournalAustralian Mammalogy
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Ecology
  • Habitat
  • Hastings river mouse
  • Pseudomys oralis
  • Review

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Updating biological reviews: The hastings river mouse pseudomys oralis as a case history'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this