[Taxacom] Biodiversity and paraphyly

Tue Feb 20 12:01:03 CST 2007

As I quoted before, "One must remain aware of the real-world consequences 
of his philosophies."

This is yet another case of a particular mind-set or a priori assumption 
forcing researchers into some ridiculous conclusions.  Anyone who seriously 
believes this is clearly out of touch with the realities of ecology and 
biology.

Tom Lammers

At 11:29 AM 2/20/2007, Richard Zander wrote:
>A Reuters article recently reported:
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Genetics Reveal 15 New North American Bird Species
>
>February 19, 2007 - By Alister Doyle, Reuters
>
>OSLO -- Genetic tests of North American birds show what may be 15 new
>species including ravens and owls -- look alikes that do not interbreed
>and have wrongly had the same name for centuries, scientists said on
>Sunday.
>
>If the findings from a study of birds' DNA genetic "barcodes" in the
>United States and Canada hold true around the world, there might be more
>than 1,000 new species of birds on top of 10,000 identified so far, they
>said.
>
>A parallel study of South American bats in Guyana also showed six new
>species among 87 surveyed, hinting that human studies of the defining
>characteristics of species may have been too superficial to tell almost
>identical types apart.
>
>"This is the leading tip of a process that will see the genetic
>registration of life on the planet," said Paul Hebert of the
>Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, a co-author of the report in the
>British Journal Molecular Ecology Notes.
>
>"You can't protect biodiversity if you can't recognize it."
>_________________________________________________________
>
>
>This is total nonsense. Surviving ancestors continue to accumulate
>neutral genes yet retain essential identity (phenotype and niche . . .
>remember niche?). Insisting on paraphyly in a molecular tree forces the
>splitting of species into populations (nuclear genes) or even
>individuals (mitochondrial and chloroplast genes), all of which may then
>be termed "cryptic species" and named as new species (or genera or
>families). This is what comes of abandoning the "modification" in
>"descent with modification."
>
>If a phylogenetically complex (isolated populations) species were to pup
>a new species (different phenotype and niche) from somewhere central,
>the sister group would have to be named a species, and a bunch of the
>branches lower in the tree must also. The patristic distance, measured
>as numbers of neutral base changes in DNA, between two end members among
>the populations of the species could (and probably would) be greater
>than the patristic distance between the new species and the nearest
>population of the ancestral species. When doing biodiversity triage,
>would one choose to protect the two end members of the original species
>(same phenotype and niche) because they are "genetically distant"
>(through neutral mutations) and let the new species go? Or, better,
>recognize the adaptation and fitness of the phenome in a particular
>environment as more important for biodiversity than the neutrally
>evolving genome?
>
>Biodiversity investigated with molecular analysis alone is rendered a
>mere game by excessive atomization due to focus on neutral evolution and
>forced monophyly. Eventually, with enough exemplars and exploration of
>fan-shaped pedigree charts (matrilineally inherited traits), all
>individuals will be named, or perhaps we can just stop with the
>panmictic deme in those cases when lack of resolution from mitochondria
>and chloroplasts requires studying recombining traits from nuclear
>genes.
>
>I foresee a paradigm shift back to biosystematics and the Modern
>Synthesis. Molecular analysis does not protect biodiversity. Taxonomic
>recognition of a unique phenotype interacting with a particular range of
>environmental variables with a particular reproductive system, in
>combination, does.
>
>
>******************************
>Richard H. Zander
>Voice: 314-577-0276
>Missouri Botanical Garden
>PO Box 299
>St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
>richard.zander at mobot.org
>Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
>For FedEx and UPS use:
>Missouri Botanical Garden
>4344 Shaw Blvd.
>St. Louis, MO 63110
>******************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom mailing list
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and 
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous