[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 36, Issue 29
Hollywoodkiller Movies
hollywoodkillermovies at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 15:56:15 CDT 2009
thanks.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:00 AM, <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> 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. Re: Latin grammar-related question (Paul van Rijckevorsel)
> 2. Eccrine glands (Kenneth Kinman)
> 3. feathered flying fish (Kenneth Kinman)
> 4. Re: feathered flying fish (Curtis Clark)
> 5. Re: feathered flying fish (Richard Pyle)
> 6. Re: feathered flying fish (Curtis Clark)
> 7. species (was: feathered flying fish)n (Kenneth Kinman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:00:03 +0100
> From: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Latin grammar-related question
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <B37F81FA2BA64159B4126BB54C62EFCE at Dpunctata>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> From: "Dr. David Campbell" <amblema at bama.ua.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:58 PM
> >> There are a few existing species names in the same genus that may
> >> have been "misspelled" in that they have endings like "-sis", "-alis"
> >> or "-aris".
>
> > Just remember to make sure that the word in question really is a
> > normally behaving Latin adjective, rather than, e.g., a noun in
> > apposition or a term derived from some other language.
>
> ***
> Yes, that is good advice. It would also be a good idea to carefully read
> Art. 62 on gender of generic names.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:26:24 -0500
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] Eccrine glands
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <13095-49CAD9C0-1059 at storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Curtis,
> ??????????No, it is not that labile. Depending on
> the taxon, I'm sure eccrine gland distribution could be phylogenetically
> useful for some family level taxa of mammals. I certainly would include
> it in a phylogenetic analysis of hominoid primates. On the other hand,
> it would obviously be useless in rodent families that have no eccrine
> glands. The plesiomorphy is presence in the footpads.
> -------Ken
> ----------------------------------------------
> Curtis wrote:
> On 2009-03-24 08:19, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> ?????????As for eccrine glands, one could probably
> write a >whole book on their distribution. In short, different mammalian
> taxa >solve their thermoregulatory problems in different ways.
> Carnivores >pant (think of it as "internal sweating" through the lungs)
> probably >because sweat-soaked coats would be problematic. People and
> >horses with less dense coats can more freely sweat externally.
> Elephants >could have done the same, but they conserve water by using
> their big ears >to thermoregulate. Also depends on the availability of
> water >to drink and in their food (desert animals can't afford to sweat
> a >lot).
> So are you saying that their distribution is too labile for
> phylogenetic use? What is the plesiomorphy?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:40:49 -0500
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] feathered flying fish
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <13095-49CADD21-1075 at storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Curtis,
> ????????So your ichthyologist friend considers himself a
> fish? Sponges are also probably paraphyletic, so I guess he would
> consider himself a sponge too. Bryophyta is paraphyletic, so does that
> mean cacti are bryophytes?
> ? Anyway, this is the first time I've ever heard birds call
> "feathered flying fish", even in jest. To me all this just further
> demonstrates the absurdity of paraphylophobia and compulsive obsessions
> with strict cladifications.
> ??????????????????????------Ken
> Kinman
> ----------------------------------------------
> Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> ???????Well, I didn't actually set myself up, because I
> specified "fish". Owls are descendants of fish, but they are not fish.
>
> Curtis responded:
> Not according to my cladist ichthyologist friend (although he
> explicitly doesn't study the feathered flying fish).
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:11:51 -0700
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] feathered flying fish
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <49CAF277.6010506 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2009-03-25 18:40, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> > So your ichthyologist friend considers himself a
> > fish?
>
> Yes. He specializes in teleosts, though, and does not regard himself to
> be a teleost.
>
> > Sponges are also probably paraphyletic, so I guess he would
> > consider himself a sponge too.
>
> I'm guessing he doesn't have an opinion on that one. At the height of
> his career, I think most people still thought of sponges as monophyletic.
>
> > Bryophyta is paraphyletic, so does that
> > mean cacti are bryophytes?
>
> I don't know many cladists who use the term "bryophyte"; it was already
> ambiguous in that it could be used either for the moss clade or for the
> non-xylem-producing land plants. Cacti are certainly land plants.
>
> > Anyway, this is the first time I've ever heard birds call
> > "feathered flying fish", even in jest. To me all this just further
> > demonstrates the absurdity of paraphylophobia and compulsive obsessions
> > with strict cladifications.
>
> It seems to me than any scholar should be able to consider a half-dozen
> contradictory ideas at the same time. For a Red Queen, they can even be
> impossible and before breakfast. IMO, the only issue is usefulness to
> non-scholars, and of course we disagree about that.
>
> --
> Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/<http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Ejcclark/>
> Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
> University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:27:34 -1000
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] feathered flying fish
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <BB551A9984A04446A6B9CA843F387C0F at rlpsager9262>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> We're all just colonial assemblages of symbiotic prokaryotes, serving as an
> environment for other prokaryotes.
>
> There are no species; only descendants.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Kenneth Kinman
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:41 PM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: [Taxacom] feathered flying fish
> >
> > Curtis,
> > ????????So your ichthyologist friend considers himself a
> > fish? Sponges are also probably paraphyletic, so I guess he
> > would consider himself a sponge too. Bryophyta is
> > paraphyletic, so does that
> > mean cacti are bryophytes?
> > ? Anyway, this is the first time I've ever heard birds
> > call "feathered flying fish", even in jest. To me all this
> > just further demonstrates the absurdity of paraphylophobia
> > and compulsive obsessions
> > with strict cladifications.
> > ??????????????????????------Ken
> > Kinman
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> > ???????Well, I didn't actually set myself up, because I
> > specified "fish". Owls are descendants of fish, but they are
> > not fish.
> >
> > Curtis responded:
> > Not according to my cladist ichthyologist friend
> > (although he explicitly doesn't study the feathered flying fish).
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> > either of these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:27:40 -0700
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] feathered flying fish
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <49CB90DC.9090209 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2009-03-25 20:27, Richard Pyle wrote:
>
> > There are no species; only descendants.
>
> There are no objects, only time-delimited assemblages of particles.
>
>
> --
> Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/<http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Ejcclark/>
> Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
> University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:14:29 -0500
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] species (was: feathered flying fish)n
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <25309-49CB9BD5-695 at storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> Hi Rich,
> ????????That's an interesting twist on logic, which I
> assume you meant to illustrate the absurdity of extreme "reductionist"
> thinking (and the excesses of "cladification"). I capitalized the word
> "just" in your response, because that one word makes a big difference
> (as it also makes a difference in classifying Aves as "just" reptiles).
> There are three major structural revolutions between us humans and our
> prokaryotic ancestors:
> ????????(1) the eukaryotic cell (itself being a very
> complex "colonial assemblage of symbiotic prokaryotes"); (2) assemblages
> of eukaryotic cells into multicellular organisms; and (3) growth in size
> and complexity of multicellular organisms (resulting in organs and organ
> systems).
> ?????????The first one (eukaryotic cell) resulted in a
> huge increase in species cohesiveness, and the second made species even
> more cohesive (and even less fuzzy). Therefore I cannot agree with the
> conclusion that there are no species. Granted, they are still fuzzy, but
> not nearly as fuzzy as species of unicellular protists (which have only
> one main level of structural complexity beyond prokaryotes).
> Conclusion. The most important kinds of complexity, be they
> structural, or otherwise, are where paraphyletic cuts in the Tree of
> Life are most useful (to both scholars and lay people). Prokaryota is
> the ultimate paraphyletic taxon, and attempts to complete cladify it
> (e.g., the Three Domain System) are often counterproductive.
> ??????????????????--------Ken Kinman
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> We're all JUST colonial assemblages of symbiotic prokaryotes, serving as
> an environment for other prokaryotes.
>
> There are no species; only descendants.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or use a Google search specified as: site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 36, Issue 29
> ***************************************
>
--
http://www.watch-movies-online-hollywoodkiller.com
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list