Another query...

[castalia]

Okay, I've read this sentence so many times I'm no longer certain what to do with it. My supervisor was confused by it and at first suggested I'd left out a word, but once I explained it he said I might want to reword.

I'm talking about chemoreception and how a previous study did some bad science, skipping ahead to test the ability of cuttlefish to distinguish b/w two stimuli without first testing that they even have a sense of smell (distance chemoreception). I wrote:

"In this case, the researchers moved ahead to test the fine-tuning of an ability S. officinalis were not proven to possess."

This sentence makes perfect sense to me. However, it obviously confused my supervisor. What say ye, flist? I'm trying to think of a suitable rewording without repeating myself and making it sound stupid.

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Although it was not established that S. officianalis did, in fact, possess $sense, the researchers attempted to measure its sensitivity.

Does that work?

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I like that, although I'm trying to stay away from using "in fact". It seems a bit too colloquial for a scientific paper.

[malnpudl.livejournal.com]

Makes perfect sense to me, too.

*fiddles*

Maybe:

"In this case, the researchers moved ahead to test the fine-tuning of an ability that S. officinalis had not been proven to possess."

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

The "had not been" is probably a better tense to use. I may go with the above suggestion, or a variation on it.

Your icon is quite apropos ;P

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

"had not been" is good if the whole "do they have the ability or not?" is still in doubt, I think. If it's that teh researchers were testing an ability they'd seen but had not yet proven (via publishing?) I'd say it might be clearer as:

"an ability S. officinalis was not (yet) proven to possess" or something similar.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

It is still in doubt, though now that I've tested it there will be at least some data proving one way or the other. They were testing an ability their past research had suggested could be there, but my main criticism is that they skipped the crucial step of testing for that ability directly.

"an ability S. officinalis was not (yet) proven to possess" or something similar.

What's your opinion on the tense to use for a species? Does it act as a collective noun or does it need the plural? Or does it not matter either way as long as I'm consistent?

[wishfulaces.livejournal.com]

What's your opinion on the tense to use for a species? Does it act as a collective noun or does it need the plural?

Oooh. Seems to me Americans tend to take plural nouns like that and treat them as singular ("The House of Lords was not happy with...") whereas Brits treat a noun like that as plural. I think. I'd go with the plural...and I like using "had not yet been proven" or "was not yet proven," something along those lines to be totally clear.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

I seem to have been using the plural lately, and I do like the way it sounds. The only online reference I've been able to find says a scientific name is both singular and plural, which doesn't exactly help ;P

[wishfulaces.livejournal.com]

*snort* Ah, I love it when you get those vague-to-the-point-of-useless sort of suggestions. If you like the plural, I'd go with it. They can't mark you down *too* much for it, can they?

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't think so. But I want to get a really good mark for this. I pulled a 68% for the taught portion of the course so I need a 72% mark for the thesis to get a distinction for my degree. Which means I need at least a low A. Before, I didn't really care so long as I got the degree at all, but now that it's close and attainable, I want it.

[wishfulaces.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can totally understand that. (I doomed myself by getting a 4.0 the first semester as I went for my MA.) How do the percentages and distinctions work under that educational system, anyway? It confuses me.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

They're...much different from ours. This is what my course manual says:

Grade A* >79.5% (Outstanding in all respects)
Grade A 69.5 - 79.5% (Excellent in most respects)
Grade B 60 - 69.5% (Some very good features)
Grade C 50 - 59.5% (Satisfactory overall)
Grade D 40 - 49.5% (Bare pass; some serious inadequacies)
Grade F <39.5% (Inadequate in most respects)

Anything about a 70% is a distinction for the taught portion or the thesis. But to get a distiction overall you have to have an average mark of above 70% for the whole thing, with not less than 65% for the first part and not less than 70% for the second part. So the thesis can slightly make up for the first part if it's not high enough, but not the other way around.

[wishfulaces.livejournal.com]

Wow. So, does it feel harder or easier under their system compared to the US higher-level system? I mean, it looks like it should be easy to get an A with those kinds of percentages allowed, but from what you mentioned getting in the taught portion...

[boniblithe.livejournal.com]

Why can't you just use the same words you used to explain it to us? I find I get the most out of papers which read like conversations and not like ... papers, if you know what I mean *g*.

In this case, the researchers moved ahead to test the ability of cuttlefish to distinguish between stimuli, without first confirming that cuttlefish were capable of distance chemoreception.

It still meets the big words quota.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

Oh, you have no idea how much I have to stop myself from being a smart-ass in my writing, or making jokes. *g* I might get away with subtle wit, at least. Something this long needs a little humor, IMO, so the examiners don't find it tedious.

Thanks, I've sort of done that, just moved some things around so I'm not repeating what I said when I described their experiments. My biggest problem in scientific writing is being too succinct or using odd turns of phrase that sound nice in my head but not to other people.

[lauraspeak.livejournal.com]

This is probably too late, but the thing that confused me about the sentence was that my mind kept trying to end it after the word "ability". Of course, this most likely also has a lot to do with the fact that I had no idea what S. officinalis were until I figured it out from the context of the whole post.

Kind of a crude suggestion that may only benefit sea-creature-illiterate folk such as me, would be to mention the S. Officinalis in the beginning of the sentence. Then again, it would benefit me if I were just reading this sentence, as I do not know how else you have mentioned them previously.

Maybe something like:

S. officinalis were not proven to even possess the ability to smell at this point, still the researchers moved ahead to test the fine-tuning of this* ability. [*or: their smelling ability.]