[Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
Chuck Miller
Chuck.Miller at mobot.org
Tue Nov 28 14:11:48 CST 2006
Excerpt from the US Copyright Office.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Their explanation of fair use. "Reproduction by a teacher or student of
a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson" is fair use. But what
differentiates a small from a large part? The kind of thing that keeps
attorneys employed.
Fair Use
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in
sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).
One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use."
Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the
doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions
over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the
copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or
notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the
source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining
permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism
for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in
a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the
work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations,
in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to
replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of
a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in
legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and
fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located
in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information
conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this
permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted
material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would
clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither
determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on
possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to
consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised July 2006
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:00 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Taxacom Digest, Vol 8, Issue 30
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Slight but important update to Ekman Herbarium (EHH) online
catalogue ( Martin Dub? )
2. PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
(Neal Evenhuis)
3. Re: PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
(Robert K. Peet)
4. Wheldon & Wesley sidebar (Geoff Read)
5. Re: PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHTVIOLATIONS
(Donat Agosti)
6. Re: PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
(Neal Evenhuis)
7. Re: PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
(Donat Agosti)
8. Re: Seed plants of Fiji (John Grehan)
9. Vicariant form-making (John Grehan)
10. Re: Seed plants of Fiji (John Grehan)
11. Microseris and Pacific biogeography (John Grehan)
12. Re: Seed plants of Fiji (rjensen at saintmarys.edu)
13. Re: Seed plants of Fiji (rjensen at saintmarys.edu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:53:22 -0400
From: " Martin Dub? " <martin at umce.ca>
Subject: [Taxacom] Slight but important update to Ekman Herbarium
(EHH) online catalogue
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <456B3422.6447.978CE1 at martin.umce.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Those peoples working with Ekman specimens should take note that some
collection numbers of this prominent botanist beginning with an H may be
found
in Ekman Herbarium (EHH) without the H. The reason for this is unknown.
So, while searching the online database, please use both manners in
order to be
sure to find the specimens (nomenclatural type and others) you are
looking for.
A note about this has been added to the search page
< http://www.umce.ca/cours/martin/herbier_ekman/DBSEARCHenglish.htm >
Best wishes,
Martin Dub?, Ph.D.
Campus d'Edmundston
Universit? de Moncton
Edmundston, NB
CANADA E3V 2S8
http:\\www.umce.ca\cours\martin\Ekman_Herbarium
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:57:04 -1000
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Subject: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <p0623091ac1913910834a@[10.1.11.56]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
FYI.
From the EDUCAUSE listserve:
PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is calling on colleges and
universities to take steps to address what they see as rampant
copyright abuse by faculty. According to the AAP, faculty who post
protected content online for use in their courses cost the publishing
industry at least $20 million each year in lost revenues. Before the
advent of online reserves, faculty would often place hard-copy
materials in the library for students to view. That practice has been
largely replaced by making digital copies of course materials available
online. The publishing industry objects, saying faculty who do this go
beyond the scope of fair use. Allan Adler, vice president for legal and
governmental affairs with AAP, said, "We can't compete with free." The
organization pointed to a recent agreement with Cornell University in
which the institution works to educate faculty on appropriate uses of
copyrighted material and on best practices to avoid infringing uses.
The AAP hopes that other institutions will implement programs similar
to the one Cornell has adopted.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 November 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/292898_copyright20.html
-Neal
--
Dr. Neal L. Evenhuis
Chairman, Department of Natural Sciences
Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:46:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert K. Peet" <peet at unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS
To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<Pine.A41.4.63+UNC.0611272025350.55840 at login2.isis.unc.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
The question of whether you can post copyrighted material on class
websites without paying fees is far from trivial and there is no
agreement
among university lawyers. Here in North Carolina we have both ends of
the
spectrum represented by two major research universities a mere 15km
part.
Duke University lawyers assert it is perfectly legal for faculty to post
anything held in the university library on their class websites,
provided
the material is password protected and only available to the specific
class. At the University of North Carolina our lawyers assert we have
to
pay royalties for what Duke faculty do for free, and the University pays
almost $100,000 per year to implement this policy. Until the lawyers can
decide, it is silly to emphasize education of faculty.
A way around this problem is for professional organizations to adopt
liberal use policies, and for authors to preferentially select to
publish
in the journals of such organizations. For example, the Ecological
Society of America explicitly allows posting of articles from its
journals
to a class websites (see http://esapubs.org/esapubs/permissions.htm)
with
no fee. I encourage all of you to work with your professional societies
to adopt similar policies, and then to preferentially publish in those
journals.
======================================================================
Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone: 919-962-6942
Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax: 919-962-6930
University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email: peet at unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/
http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
======================================================================
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Neal Evenhuis wrote:
> FYI.
>
> From the EDUCAUSE listserve:
>
>
> PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
> The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is calling on colleges
and
> universities to take steps to address what they see as rampant
> copyright abuse by faculty. According to the AAP, faculty who post
> protected content online for use in their courses cost the publishing
> industry at least $20 million each year in lost revenues. Before the
> advent of online reserves, faculty would often place hard-copy
> materials in the library for students to view. That practice has been
> largely replaced by making digital copies of course materials
available
> online. The publishing industry objects, saying faculty who do this go
> beyond the scope of fair use. Allan Adler, vice president for legal
and
> governmental affairs with AAP, said, "We can't compete with free." The
> organization pointed to a recent agreement with Cornell University in
> which the institution works to educate faculty on appropriate uses of
> copyrighted material and on best practices to avoid infringing uses.
> The AAP hopes that other institutions will implement programs similar
> to the one Cornell has adopted.
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 November 2006
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/292898_copyright20.html
>
> -Neal
> --
> Dr. Neal L. Evenhuis
> Chairman, Department of Natural Sciences
> Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street
> Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:25:26 +1300
From: Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
Subject: [Taxacom] Wheldon & Wesley sidebar
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <456BD656.3020608 at niwa.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Those who remember the address of Lytton Lodge, Codicote, the W&W
catalogues, and the peculiar events surrounding the final demise of the
firm might be interested in this little good news / bad news oddity.
With a nod to the recent thread on impermanence of media.
http://www.strackbooks.nl/news_w&w.htm
Geoff
--
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.co.nz>
http://www.annelida.net/
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:59:57 +0100
From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR
COPYRIGHTVIOLATIONS
To: "'Robert K. Peet'" <peet at unc.edu>, "'Neal Evenhuis'"
<neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <055501c712cb$95128b30$825c010a at bern>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
$20M seems not to be a huge loss in a $3.5 billion market with high
profit
margins. And it also not clear, how many of those not buying would buy
if
they would not have access to, and now many buy later, because they got
to
know a textbook and later bought.
As Robert points out, this is a case to adopt a liberal use policy, that
is
to sign up on open access, and avoid in publishing in copyrighted
journals.
On Nov 27, the university of Zurich officially launched the Zurich Open
Access Respository aiming at http://www.zora.unizh.ch/zora/. The Uni
Z?rich
requires their researchers to deposit a copy of all their published and
refereed articles in the Institutional Repository of the University, if
there are no legal objections. UZ encourages and supports their authors
to
publish their research articles in open access journals where a suitable
journal exists and provides the support to enable that to happen.
This is one of an increasing number of institution worldwide
implementing
open access.
A similar initiative is the MIT Open Course Ware project
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
Since our knowledge is so important to a very wide number of fields, we
really ought to follow suit and make taxonomy a member of open access
community.
The more we also push for open access, the more likely NSF and other
research funding agencies, including our own institutions will allocate
the
respective resources needed. Even if some of it is diverting from
research
budgets, open access is a huge gain for research: you do not have to
spend
time in libraries and interlibrary loans, but can get all of this from
your
own pc, plus questions can be asked they couldn't before.
Donat Agosti
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Robert K. Peet
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:46 AM
To: Neal Evenhuis
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR
COPYRIGHTVIOLATIONS
The question of whether you can post copyrighted material on class
websites without paying fees is far from trivial and there is no
agreement
among university lawyers. Here in North Carolina we have both ends of
the
spectrum represented by two major research universities a mere 15km
part.
Duke University lawyers assert it is perfectly legal for faculty to post
anything held in the university library on their class websites,
provided
the material is password protected and only available to the specific
class. At the University of North Carolina our lawyers assert we have
to
pay royalties for what Duke faculty do for free, and the University pays
almost $100,000 per year to implement this policy. Until the lawyers can
decide, it is silly to emphasize education of faculty.
A way around this problem is for professional organizations to adopt
liberal use policies, and for authors to preferentially select to
publish
in the journals of such organizations. For example, the Ecological
Society of America explicitly allows posting of articles from its
journals
to a class websites (see http://esapubs.org/esapubs/permissions.htm)
with
no fee. I encourage all of you to work with your professional societies
to adopt similar policies, and then to preferentially publish in those
journals.
======================================================================
Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone: 919-962-6942
Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax: 919-962-6930
University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email: peet at unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/
http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
======================================================================
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Neal Evenhuis wrote:
> FYI.
>
> From the EDUCAUSE listserve:
>
>
> PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
> The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is calling on colleges
and
> universities to take steps to address what they see as rampant
> copyright abuse by faculty. According to the AAP, faculty who post
> protected content online for use in their courses cost the publishing
> industry at least $20 million each year in lost revenues. Before the
> advent of online reserves, faculty would often place hard-copy
> materials in the library for students to view. That practice has been
> largely replaced by making digital copies of course materials
available
> online. The publishing industry objects, saying faculty who do this go
> beyond the scope of fair use. Allan Adler, vice president for legal
and
> governmental affairs with AAP, said, "We can't compete with free." The
> organization pointed to a recent agreement with Cornell University in
> which the institution works to educate faculty on appropriate uses of
> copyrighted material and on best practices to avoid infringing uses.
> The AAP hopes that other institutions will implement programs similar
> to the one Cornell has adopted.
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 November 2006
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/292898_copyright20.html
>
> -Neal
> --
> Dr. Neal L. Evenhuis
> Chairman, Department of Natural Sciences
> Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street
> Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:34:47 -1000
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS
To: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>, <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <p06020402c191c13f4a33@[66.91.58.160]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>$20M seems not to be a huge loss in a $3.5 billion market with high
profit
>margins.
Not quite right, Donat.
In my experience in publishing scholarly works, just the opposite is
true for textbooks (and there are numerous online articles explaining
the true profit margins of textbooks -- just google "textbook" and
"profit-margin").
The reason for the high costs of textbooks is essentially that the
vast majority of them are demand driven (publishers cut the large
costs of production by only producing the number they estimate are
needed by professors -- why do you think they canvass professors on
what they will be needing for their courses?) and thus also avoiding
large unsold stocks sitting on shelves knowing that soon a new
"revised edition" will be coming forth to keep up-to-date (and the
recent U.S. tax laws state that you must inventory unsold books at
the retail price, not the unit cost - a very big change that caused a
change in how many scholarly books are produced nowadays). Publishers
thus need to prop up the retail to keep the revenues meeting
resultant large production expenses for those shorter print runs.
True -- there are "best sellers" in the textbook world in the primary
and secondary education sector and they are produced at a very low
cost due to the tremendous volume of guaranteed sales and are
retailed at a correspondingly low cost in order for schools to be
able to purchase them. However, the textbooks that many colleges and
universities require in their specific course work are sold at a much
comparatively lower volume and need to be priced accordingly (even
so, it is normal for the profit margin to be kept at only 25% for
textbooks -- extremely low when the normal profit margin for the
non-textbook scholarly publication market is 400% or more over unit
cost).
One might ask why then would publishers continue to produce textbooks
if the profit margin is so low? The answer: volume. It's the same as
grocery stores, which as everyone knows, have extremely small profit
margins. The only way grocery markets stay in business with such low
profit margins is volume. The same with the textbook market.
So, if we truly want to make all information open access (not just
journal articles) we also need to be discussing a change in how
textbooks are produced -- or not. My hunch is that no publisher will
go along with allowing textbook material to be accessed absolutely
for free. Thus, the only solution is that textbooks need to be
abandoned and regarded as old-fashioned, obsolete, and an unnecessary
added weight that is much easier to deal with electronic files that
are extremely more light weight. If the educational curriculum-makers
can go along with non-traditional textbook publication (i.e.,
web-based or pdf files) then open access for this type of information
will succeed.
Of course, lack of proper exercise in carrying all those heavy
textbooks will also cease and no doubt arm muscle atrophy will take
place over time ... But I can live with that. I'm not going to ever
get back into competitive tennis or baseball in my lifetime ... (but
I know my wife will be pissed if I cannot take the trash out
anymore)... She'll ask me why, and I'll weakly raise an atrophied arm
and point over to my iPod and say "Blame that!"
;-)
--Neal
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:51:59 +0100
From: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <057a01c712db$3b27f280$825c010a at bern>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Neal
A structural change is needed. The open course ware initiative is just
one,
and since MIT is one of the leaders in it, it has an impact, and
hopefully
will lead to a discussion in our field as well.
(http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html)
See for example how quickly our knowledge changes during the last years:
higher classification of arthropods down to species level. There is a
huge
impact of DNA studies (although often not more conclusive then previous
studies), evolutionary development and imaging, which calls for adoption
of
textbooks very quickly - or then use online curricula.
Even the libraries talk about this and will need to adopt (see eg
http://delange.rice.edu/conferenceVI.cfm).
There might be a market for printed version of all this material, and
even a
service to produce well formatted content, etc. And I think this is
already
protected because it is a hassle to edit this content, get a market for
it,
set up a print on demand, etc. and if there would be "creative commons
license" on it, stating that the material can be used for free for
educational purposes only with attribution rights, than this might do
it.
I certainly buy books - the only difference nowadays is, that once I
read my
books, I often cut, scan and ocr them, so I can easier search them for
what
I need. One reason is, that I don't like the idea that I have not only
to
assure I take the book along, but that I charged my cadget and don't
forget
to bring along the charger with the right plugh, figure out in hotel
where I
can plugh it in, etc.
Donat
-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Evenhuis [mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Donat Agosti; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] PUBLISHERS CRITICIZE PROFESSORS FOR COPYRIGHT
VIOLATIONS
>$20M seems not to be a huge loss in a $3.5 billion market with high
profit
>margins.
Not quite right, Donat.
In my experience in publishing scholarly works, just the opposite is
true for textbooks (and there are numerous online articles explaining
the true profit margins of textbooks -- just google "textbook" and
"profit-margin").
The reason for the high costs of textbooks is essentially that the
vast majority of them are demand driven (publishers cut the large
costs of production by only producing the number they estimate are
needed by professors -- why do you think they canvass professors on
what they will be needing for their courses?) and thus also avoiding
large unsold stocks sitting on shelves knowing that soon a new
"revised edition" will be coming forth to keep up-to-date (and the
recent U.S. tax laws state that you must inventory unsold books at
the retail price, not the unit cost - a very big change that caused a
change in how many scholarly books are produced nowadays). Publishers
thus need to prop up the retail to keep the revenues meeting
resultant large production expenses for those shorter print runs.
True -- there are "best sellers" in the textbook world in the primary
and secondary education sector and they are produced at a very low
cost due to the tremendous volume of guaranteed sales and are
retailed at a correspondingly low cost in order for schools to be
able to purchase them. However, the textbooks that many colleges and
universities require in their specific course work are sold at a much
comparatively lower volume and need to be priced accordingly (even
so, it is normal for the profit margin to be kept at only 25% for
textbooks -- extremely low when the normal profit margin for the
non-textbook scholarly publication market is 400% or more over unit
cost).
One might ask why then would publishers continue to produce textbooks
if the profit margin is so low? The answer: volume. It's the same as
grocery stores, which as everyone knows, have extremely small profit
margins. The only way grocery markets stay in business with such low
profit margins is volume. The same with the textbook market.
So, if we truly want to make all information open access (not just
journal articles) we also need to be discussing a change in how
textbooks are produced -- or not. My hunch is that no publisher will
go along with allowing textbook material to be accessed absolutely
for free. Thus, the only solution is that textbooks need to be
abandoned and regarded as old-fashioned, obsolete, and an unnecessary
added weight that is much easier to deal with electronic files that
are extremely more light weight. If the educational curriculum-makers
can go along with non-traditional textbook publication (i.e.,
web-based or pdf files) then open access for this type of information
will succeed.
Of course, lack of proper exercise in carrying all those heavy
textbooks will also cease and no doubt arm muscle atrophy will take
place over time ... But I can live with that. I'm not going to ever
get back into competitive tennis or baseball in my lifetime ... (but
I know my wife will be pissed if I cannot take the trash out
anymore)... She'll ask me why, and I'll weakly raise an atrophied arm
and point over to my iPod and say "Blame that!"
;-)
--Neal
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:56:30 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
To: <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, Biogeography Portal
<biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE799AB8B4B at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Richard,
If you could explain how my position on definitions has specific impact
on a particular discussion it might be helpful. But otherwise I stand by
my statement. Definitiions, of themselves, never solve anything other
that what is already solved. That is how one comes up with definitions,
and that is why people may argue over definitions.
John Grehan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:23 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: Karl Magnacca; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Biogeography Portal
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
>
> Karl et al.,
>
> I suspect that your attempts to use logical example/explanations and
> emphasize the meaning of things will fail to convince John of
anything.
> After all, John had this to say about the meanings of terms (this is a
> direct quote):
>
> "Definitions don't tell you any more than you already know. That is
why
> they don't matter."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dick J
>
> Richard Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> Tel: 574-284-4674
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:02:38 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: [Taxacom] Vicariant form-making
To: "Karl Magnacca" <kmagnacca at alumni.wesleyan.edu>,
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Biogeography Portal"
<biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE799AB8B4D at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Magnacca
>
> Okay, having looked it up I see what Mike was talking about: it does
> indeed read like nonsense, including using different definitions for
> various words. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Ok. But at least you now understand the term.
>
> On Thu, November 16, 2006 7:01 pm, Michael Ivie wrote:
> > Dear Taxacomers, isn't it clear he does this just for the attention?
If
> > no one answers his drivel, it will go away eventually (being as he
is a
> > true believing evangelist, it might take a long time -- I am
thinking
> > of the scruffy guy preaching on street corners for weeks on end with
> > everyone just walking by them, ignoring them...). I know, I am
giving
> > him the attention he craves, but hey, I am only human, and can only
take
> > so much.
>
> Sigh...I know, I need to avoid the temptation. There's just too few
> people to argue with around here.
I assume you view panbiogeography as drivel - which is ok. People are
entitled to their opinions. But keep in mind that the method works - no
one has ever demonstrated that the standard tracks and nodes do not
exist, that there are vicariant patterns that transcend dispersal
ability, that there are complementary main massings, or that the method
generated novel geological predictions that have been independently
corroborated by geologists. If you think its all drivel, how about
showing this to be the case for Heads' recent article on Fiji?
John Grehan
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:20:43 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
To: "Michael A. Ivie" <mivie at montana.edu>,
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Biogeography Portal"
<biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE799AB8B4E at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Ivie is quite correct in noting that nothing is "totally"
independent in science. However, that was not my intention and I am
sorry that he was not sufficiently familiar with panbiogeography to know
that. The independence of panbiogeography stems from the methods and
principles that are specific to the research program. Those methods and
principles involve spatial analysis of geographic relationships in terms
of tracks, nodes, baselines, and main massings, and geological
correlation. These are all conceptual tools specific to panbiogeography
- although various researchers have used one or more of these techniques
both before and after panbiogeography was formalized.
The significance of the methodological independence may be seen with the
synthesis of geology and biogeography. Most studies approach geology in
terms of accepting a particular geohistorical narrative and then
constructing the biogeographic narrative based on various assumptions
about centers of origin, dispersal ability, and age of the taxon. In
panbiogeography one must first identify the spatial characteristics of
individual and multiple distributions in terms of their track, node,
baseline, and main massing geography. These characteristics provide a
way of predicting the probable geographic sector involved, and from that
one can associate the relevant geological context in terms of
correlating geological patterns with the biogeographic pattern. The
correlation or lack thereof can provide a purely biogeographic basis by
which to predict to what extent a theorized geological history may or
may not be involved with the evolution of that distribution.
Correlations between distributions and particular geomorphological
features may lead to predictions that do not correspond with consensus
views about geohistory, or they may correspond only to some
geohistorical narratives (either the majority view or one or more
minority views). Craw (1987) gives a good illustration with respect to
the Chatham Islands, showing how there were two entirely contradictory
geohistorical theories and that both could be supported by the tracks
through a different geohistorical context. But the geomorphological
correlation itself rests on the geological context given to those
features so the application of the method itself is influenced by
background knowledge in geology as it may also be influenced by
systematic theory. The process is known as reciprocal illumination.
John Grehan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael A. Ivie
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
>
> I have been following this, but finally have the piece of info needed
to
> understand:
>
> John Grehan wrote:
>
> > They neither help nor hinder if one accepts that biogeography
> >
> >constitutes an independent research program with its own methods and
> >principles. That is true of panbiogeography, but it may not be true
of
> >all other methods. There are geologists who have suggested such
> >structures as I have talked about, but you wont see them by just
looking
> >at a map of the Pacific.
> >
> >
> If something is totally independent of everything else, and relies
only
> on internal logic, not on consistency with other sources of
information,
> it is called RELIGION, which is consistent with "Panbiogeograpy," the
> holy scripture of which is Croizat's wonderfully ambiguous and totally
> unreadable (except by the faithful) books of the same title.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:07:14 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: [Taxacom] Microseris and Pacific biogeography
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE799AB8B54 at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Those interested in non-dispersalist perspectives on the Pacific may
find the following article on an obscure group of daises of interest.
Grehan, J.R. 2006 A brief look at Pacific Biogeography: The
trans-oceanic travels of Microseris (Angiosperms: Asteraceae), pp 83-94.
In Ebach, M.C. and Tangney, R.S. (eds.) Biogeography in a Changing
World. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
A pdf copy may be obtained at
http://www.sciencebuff.org/grehan_publications.php
John Grehan
Dr. John R. Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
Panbiogeography
http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php
Ghost moth research
http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php
Human evolution and the great apes
http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:12:14 -0500
From: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
To: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, Biogeography Portal
<biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr>, "Michael A. Ivie"
<mivie at montana.edu>
Message-ID: <dc21ff8f.ff8fdc21 at saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
OK, John. Here's an example of why definitions are important. You
state below that "Correlations between distributions and particular
geomorphological features may lead to predictions that do not correspond
with consensus views about geohistory." First, what do you mean by
correlations? Are you using the word as a synonym of association or as
a mathematically defined parameter (Pearson, Spearman?). Second, what
do you mean by consensus? Are you using consensus as in unanimity or as
in agreement by most.
Clearly, my interpretation of what you have said may change as a
function of the definitions used for these words. There is nothing in
the context of your statement that allows me to determine which
definitions of these words you are using.
Dick J
Richard Jensen
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:20 am
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> Michael Ivie is quite correct in noting that nothing is "totally"
> independent in science. However, that was not my intention and I am
> sorry that he was not sufficiently familiar with panbiogeography
> to know
> that. The independence of panbiogeography stems from the methods and
> principles that are specific to the research program. Those
> methods and
> principles involve spatial analysis of geographic relationships in
> termsof tracks, nodes, baselines, and main massings, and geological
> correlation. These are all conceptual tools specific to
> panbiogeography- although various researchers have used one or
> more of these techniques
> both before and after panbiogeography was formalized.
>
> The significance of the methodological independence may be seen
> with the
> synthesis of geology and biogeography. Most studies approach
> geology in
> terms of accepting a particular geohistorical narrative and then
> constructing the biogeographic narrative based on various assumptions
> about centers of origin, dispersal ability, and age of the taxon. In
> panbiogeography one must first identify the spatial
> characteristics of
> individual and multiple distributions in terms of their track, node,
> baseline, and main massing geography. These characteristics
> provide a
> way of predicting the probable geographic sector involved, and
> from that
> one can associate the relevant geological context in terms of
> correlating geological patterns with the biogeographic pattern. The
> correlation or lack thereof can provide a purely biogeographic
> basis by
> which to predict to what extent a theorized geological history may or
> may not be involved with the evolution of that distribution.
> Correlations between distributions and particular geomorphological
> features may lead to predictions that do not correspond with consensus
> views about geohistory, or they may correspond only to some
> geohistorical narratives (either the majority view or one or more
> minority views). Craw (1987) gives a good illustration with
> respect to
> the Chatham Islands, showing how there were two entirely contradictory
> geohistorical theories and that both could be supported by the tracks
> through a different geohistorical context. But the geomorphological
> correlation itself rests on the geological context given to those
> features so the application of the method itself is influenced by
> background knowledge in geology as it may also be influenced by
> systematic theory. The process is known as reciprocal illumination.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael A. Ivie
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:13 PM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> >
> > I have been following this, but finally have the piece of info
> neededto
> > understand:
> >
> > John Grehan wrote:
> >
> > > They neither help nor hinder if one accepts that biogeography
> > >
> > >constitutes an independent research program with its own
> methods and
> > >principles. That is true of panbiogeography, but it may not be true
> of
> > >all other methods. There are geologists who have suggested such
> > >structures as I have talked about, but you wont see them by just
> looking
> > >at a map of the Pacific.
> > >
> > >
> > If something is totally independent of everything else, and relies
> only
> > on internal logic, not on consistency with other sources of
> information,
> > it is called RELIGION, which is consistent with
> "Panbiogeograpy," the
> > holy scripture of which is Croizat's wonderfully ambiguous and
> totally> unreadable (except by the faithful) books of the same title.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom mailing list
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:00:09 -0500
From: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
To: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, Biogeography Portal
<biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr>
Message-ID: <9cc1f7be.f7be9cc1 at saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ohn,
I never said that definitions solve anything. What I said was that
definitions do matter.
As an example, in the past you have used "overall similarity" in a way
that no one else does. You have used overall similarity to refer to
single characters. Clearly, the definition of overall similarity will
determine whether your usage makes any sense or not.
Constructive discourse requires that we have a set of common definitions
that we agree on. If not, then much time and energy will be wasted.
I have no quarrel with the view that we only learn by creating
definitions, not from the definitions. But in the end, the definitions
we use do matter.
Cheers,
Dick J
Richard Jensen
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:56 am
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> Richard,
>
> If you could explain how my position on definitions has specific
> impacton a particular discussion it might be helpful. But
> otherwise I stand by
> my statement. Definitiions, of themselves, never solve anything other
> that what is already solved. That is how one comes up with
> definitions,and that is why people may argue over definitions.
>
> John Grehan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:23 AM
> > To: John Grehan
> > Cc: Karl Magnacca; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Biogeography Portal
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> >
> > Karl et al.,
> >
> > I suspect that your attempts to use logical example/explanations and
> > emphasize the meaning of things will fail to convince John of
> anything.
> > After all, John had this to say about the meanings of terms
> (this is a
> > direct quote):
> >
> > "Definitions don't tell you any more than you already know. That is
> why
> > they don't matter."
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dick J
> >
> > Richard Jensen, Professor
> > Department of Biology
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> > Tel: 574-284-4674
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 8, Issue 30
**************************************
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list