Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional Committee: Zoology

Recommended for publication in the 'Proceedings of the Royal Society of London'. The paper should be published at the same time as part one.

[Published in the 'Proceedings of the Royal Society of London' B, 1933]

Endorsed on verso as received 1 November 1932.

Reference number
RR/46/125
Earliest possible date
November 1932
Physical description
Standardised form (type D)
Page extent
2 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

John Herbert Parsons

View page for John Herbert Parsons

Use this record

Citation

John Herbert Parsons, Referee's report by John Herbert Parsons, on a paper 'Comparative studies on the physiology of the iris.-II. Uranoscopus and Lophius' by John Zachary Young, November 1932, RR/46/125, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_46_125/referees-report-by-john-herbert-parsons-on-a-paper-comparative-studies-on-the-physiology-of-the-iris-ii-uranoscopus-and-lophius-by-john-zachary-young, accessed on 25 June 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_46_125/referees-report-by-john-herbert-parsons-on-a-paper-comparative-studies-on-the-physiology-of-the-iris-ii-uranoscopus-and-lophius-by-john-zachary-young" title="Referee's report by John Herbert Parsons, on a paper 'Comparative studies on the physiology of the iris.-II. Uranoscopus and Lophius' by John Zachary Young" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Publications

Related Fellows

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1949

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection