[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 44, Issue 7
Mauri Åhlberg
mauri.ahlberg at helsinki.fi
Sat Nov 7 12:09:47 CST 2009
Lainaus taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu:
> 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: Taxonomy and GMOs (Curtis Clark)
> 2. Re: Taxonomy and GMOs (Arthur Chapman)
> 3. Taxonomy and GMOs (Kenneth Kinman)
> 4. Re: Taxonomy and GMOs (Stephen Thorpe)
> 5. Re: Taxonomy and GMOs (dipteryx at freeler.nl)
> 6. RE: Asking for matherial of Balanophoraceae (Jer-Ming Hu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:41:49 -0800
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <4AF47BFD.2070607 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2009-11-06 08:16, Dr. David Campbell wrote:
>> On the
>> side, recognizing GMOs as new species or higher taxa provides useful
>> refutation of the antievolutionary claim that no new species are being
>> formed today.
>
> Wouldn't that be Intelligent (or at least Intentional) Design?
>
> --
> Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
> University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:08:13 +1000
> From: Arthur Chapman <taxacom3 at achapman.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <4AF4AC5D.3030309 at achapman.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Surely these would come under the International Code of Nomenclature
> of Cultivated Plants - similarly to garden hybrid and crop hybrids
> do currently
>
> http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm
>
>
> If they don't fit perfectly, then it is perhaps that Code that needs
> modifying
>
> Cheers
>
> Arthur D. Chapman
> Toowoomba
> Australia
>
>> ---------------
>> I dread to open this Pandora's box but I have recently been approached
>> for advice by someone drawing up legislation about the naming of GMOs.
>> If a GMO becomes reproductively isolated from its parent species (but
>> can reproduce with itself) does it not become a new species that now
>> needs to be named and described? If so does someone doing this then
>> follow the respective Codes of Nomenclature or do special procedures and
>> naming practices need to be followed? Do we treat them the same as
>> 'normal' species (whatever that means!) or do they deserve to be treated
>> differently as we do for horticultural plants - in which cultivars need
>> to be registered? I have been unable to find any published literature on
>> this and could find nothing in the ICBN Vienna code. A colleague also
>> tells me the Horticultural Code does not deal with this matter either.
>>
>> This not only has implications for taxonomy and classification, but
>> also for the new Phylocode - how is it going to place and contextualise
>> these GMO species which can involve lateral gene transfer from very
>> unrelated organisms? I try to convince myself that I should not be too
>> shocked by all this given that nature has been creating GMOs for
>> billions of years.
>>
>> Any advice and published references would be gratefully appreciated.
>> Ashley Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:04:15 -0600
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <15584-4AF4F1BF-4141 at storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>
> Dear All,
> I can see recognizing many polyploids as good species (separate
> from their paraphyletic mother species), but I don't think most GMOs are
> comparable, and only involve the addition of one or a few single genes.
> That a GMO would become reproductively isolated from the parental
> species seems comparatively unlikely. In fact, isn't it the likelihood
> that they would interbreed with the natural parental species (with
> unintended consequences) which make GMOs so controversial?
> Therefore I would call them cultivars which could be potentially
> dangerous because they are actually unlikely to become reproductively
> isolated and need considerable intervention to prevent interbreeding
> with the parental species. In some cases, it could become a game of
> genetic Russian roulette, and once an ill-conceived GMO experiment
> spreads into natural populations of the parent, it may become impossible
> to put that genie back into the bottle. Calling a GMO a separate
> species therefore seems like wishful thinking that would make them
> potentially more dangerous if it lulls people into thinking that they
> won't interbreed with natural parental populations.
> --------Ken Kinman
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:57:55 +1300
> From: Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
> To: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>,
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <FFF2D361BEB3AD4899E9D61AD039A0CA4CEA310EED at UXCHANGE7-2.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Perhaps we are forgetting the natural conditions clause of the BSC?
> Unnatural GMOs perhaps don't qualify under the BSC, because they
> have no "natural conditions" under which to interbreed or not. I
> think it would be very unwise to give species status to GMOs -
> better to name them something like: Parent species GMO type 1
>
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> [kennethkinman at webtv.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 7 November 2009 5:04 p.m.
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
>
> Dear All,
> I can see recognizing many polyploids as good species (separate
> from their paraphyletic mother species), but I don't think most GMOs are
> comparable, and only involve the addition of one or a few single genes.
> That a GMO would become reproductively isolated from the parental
> species seems comparatively unlikely. In fact, isn't it the likelihood
> that they would interbreed with the natural parental species (with
> unintended consequences) which make GMOs so controversial?
> Therefore I would call them cultivars which could be potentially
> dangerous because they are actually unlikely to become reproductively
> isolated and need considerable intervention to prevent interbreeding
> with the parental species. In some cases, it could become a game of
> genetic Russian roulette, and once an ill-conceived GMO experiment
> spreads into natural populations of the parent, it may become impossible
> to put that genie back into the bottle. Calling a GMO a separate
> species therefore seems like wishful thinking that would make them
> potentially more dangerous if it lulls people into thinking that they
> won't interbreed with natural parental populations.
> --------Ken Kinman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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: 5
> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:44:34 +0100
> From: <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxonomy and GMOs
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <D2964B6910618F40801883870658631B5BCF82 at CPEXBE-EML10.kpnsp.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Kenneth Kinman
> Verzonden: za 7-11-2009 5:04
>
>> Dear All,
>> I can see recognizing many polyploids as good species (separate
>> from their paraphyletic mother species), but I don't think most GMOs
>> are comparable, and only involve the addition of one or a few single
>> genes. That a GMO would become reproductively isolated from the
>> parental species seems comparatively unlikely. In fact, isn't it
>> the likelihood that they would interbreed with the natural parental
>> species (with unintended consequences) which make GMOs so
>> controversial?
>> Therefore I would call them cultivars which could be potentially
>> dangerous because they are actually unlikely to become reproductively
>> isolated and need considerable intervention to prevent interbreeding
>> with the parental species. In some cases, it could become a game of
>> genetic Russian roulette, and once an ill-conceived GMO experiment
>> spreads into natural populations of the parent, it may become
>> impossible to put that genie back into the bottle. Calling a GMO a
>> separate species therefore seems like wishful thinking that would
>> make them potentially more dangerous if it lulls people into thinking
>> that they won't interbreed with natural parental populations.
>
> ***
> That looks to be the wrong tack to take. GMO's exist in a wide range
> of forms, and there is nothing to contra-indicate that in future an
> even wider range could not be created. Perhaps at some time in the
> future there will be a Code of nomenclature particular to GMO's,
> although I don't really expect one to arise. For the moment there
> is a wide range of options to name GMO's. A one-size-fits-all
> approach is just silly.
>
> At present it is possible for a GMO to get a cultivar name, but I
> expect that in practice only a minority of GMO's would actually be
> named this way. I would rather expect many to get a name protected
> under the International Convention for the Protection of New
> Varieties of Plants (http://www.upov.org/index_en.html) or the like.
> However, basically nothing prevents a GMO from getting a species
> name. There is no inherent reason why a reproductively isolated GMO
> could not be created, if not now, then at some time in the future.
> Certainly there is no requirement in the ICBN that a species must
> have arisen naturally (quite a few well-known species were bred).
> Also, under the ICBN there are many more options for names, depending
> on the position the author wants to take.
>
> Take it case by case.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:21:20 +0800
> From: Jer-Ming Hu <jmhu at ntu.edu.tw>
> Subject: [Taxacom] RE: Asking for matherial of Balanophoraceae
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <1937A095-F748-46AB-96A0-175141A88777 at ntu.edu.tw>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> To Silvia,
>
> Although this might not be very helpful, we do have several
> Balanophora species growing in Taiwan. One of the species, Balanophora
> laxiflora, is toward the end of its flowering time.
>
> I am not familiar with weevils (I am a botanist), do you think we
> might have the taxon you are interested?
>
> In any case, I am all ears to know about the story about
> Balanophoraceae-weevils. Is there any reference you can suggest?
>
> Best,
> Jer-Ming
>
>
> d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b
> Jer-Ming Hu ???
> Associate Professor
> Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> National Taiwan University
> Rm1227, Life Science Building
> 1 Roosevelt Road Section 4
> Taipei, Taiwan
> jmhu at ntu.edu.tw
> +886-2-3366-2472 (office); +886-2-2368-6750 (fax);
> +886-2-2640-7548(Home)
> http://ecology.lifescience.ntu.edu.tw/faculty/hu_jm.htm
> d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b d^_^b
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 44, Issue 7
> **************************************
>
>
Mauri Åhlberg (in English: Ahlberg) FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
http://www.helsinki.fi/people/mauri.ahlberg
http://www.naturegate.net
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list