
21-07-2019 18:33
Hello, i collected whitish discomycetes on decomp

21-07-2019 14:13
Stefan JakobssonHello, Here a Hymenoscyphus growing on a last yea

18-07-2019 23:09
jean claude chasleBonsoir,Ceci est ma première demande sur le forum

19-07-2019 12:34
Hi everyone,i found 2 days ago some species on old

17-07-2019 18:10
Jac GelderblomHello On culms of Typha I found a small mollisia

17-07-2019 15:12
Thomas LæssøeHas anyone Remler or the part that contains Belono


I think I have written enough articles on these two topics. The mentioned article should include a short summary of my atricles and give their reference.
Articles to mention:
Baral, H.O. (1987). Lugol's solution/IKI versus Melzer's reagent: hemiamyloidity, a universal feature of the ascus wall. – Mycotaxon 29: 399–450.
Baral, H.O. (1987). Der Apikalapparat der Helotiales. Eine lichtmikroskopische Studie über Arten mit Amyloidring. – Z. Mykol. 53 (1): 119–136.
Baral, H.O. (1992). Vital versus herbarium taxonomy: morphological differences between living and dead cells of Ascomycetes, and their taxonomic implications. – Mycotaxon 44 (2): 333–390.
Baral, H.O. (2009). Iodine reaction in Ascomycetes: why is Lugol's solution superior to Melzer's reagent? – http://www.in-vivo-veritas.de/articles/iodine-reaction-in-ascomycetes-why-is-lugols-solution-superior-to-melzers-reagent/
Zotto

This overall strategy looks weird, rude and scientifically unsound to me. I would suggest you try to convince the publisher to think again about the requirement for authors to cite previous work, especially when it is relevant and seminal. Not doing so is often perceived as some sort of scientific misconduct.
I would like to add that, as a reviewer (in molecular plant-microbe interactions), I always request authors to cite relevant literature when there is an obvious attempt to hide previous work due to contradiction or anteriority.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Edouard
