Gulenko (IMO) is going backwards with some of his theories. His first version of the +/- was pretty good, now he seems to have muddled the issue. His first version of subtypes (two subtypes) had pretty accurate descriptions also, then he seemed to abandon them That said, this subtype theory is compatible with DCNH, and other authors still use it (e.g. Meged and Ovcharov -- not to mention too every person on this site that has been good at VI, who also have used it).Originally Posted by Dupuy
Reply With Quote