[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

Tue Oct 20 08:26:16 CDT 2009

Protection from damage is an important provision and for many specimens
this means that examination must require travel to the institution
rather than loan of the specimen. Where specimens that attract global
interest this can be a major impediment to the progress of science.
Hominid studies as an example, involves people from all over the world.
I have heard of cases where a researcher was subject to the cost of
travel only then to be turned away even though there was no prior
indication of such action.

Having multiple types to reference molecualr and non-molecular taxa
would seem to be tricky if one could not cross reference the molecular
characteristics. Could that ever be a major problem?

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Groff [mailto:groff at bio.miami.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:02 AM
> To: John Grehan
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I agree very strongly with you that taxa must be very well-vouchered
> and type specimens must be very accessible for study (subject to the
> need to protect them from damage).
> 
> But even when there are well-designated types that are protected and
> available for study in major collections, there is the huge problem
> that some of these types no longer can provide important characters,
> such as some molecular characters that degrade or the characters of
> other life-cycle stages, or (for example with plants) the characters
> of underground parts.
> 
> There will always be a tension between A) the system of typification
> of names with specimens and B) understanding how important, whole-
> organism/life cycle/molecular characters vary in populations.
> 
> My colleague and I are considering designating an epitype specimen,
> for which we have DNA sequences,  for one taxon whose types are not
> suitable to provide important molecular characters.
> 
> Paul Groff
> Department of Biology
> University of Miami
> Coral Gables, FL 33124
> 
> 
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:44 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> 
> > One of the key elements of 'testing' in systematics is the retention
> > of,
> > and access to, voucher material, particularly the holotype. Without
> > that
> > access systematics is not science because no one can empirically
test
> > the truth claims of what those specimens represent. Of course the
> > access
> > convention is widely flouted in hominid systematics so one of the
most
> > significant questions of evolutionary biology largely lies outside
the
> > realm of science. This has happened with Ardipithecus where open
> > access
> > was withheld from the already published holotype and who knows what
> > kind
> > of access will be granted for the additional material that might
> > lead to
> > the current hominid claims being put into serious question.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> >> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk Fitzhugh
> >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 7:27 PM
> >> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids
> >>
> >> Much of Bock's paper is derived from Szalay & Bock (1991, Z. Zool.
> > Syst.
> >> Evol. forsch. 29: 1-39). In my (Fitzhugh 2006: 46-48) Zootaxa
> > monograph,
> >> I pointed out a number of problems that continue to apply to Bocks
> > 2004
> >> paper. Differences between 'hard' sciences, whatever those are, and
> >> systematics are non-existent. Testing is testing. The 19th century
> >> literature is replete with marvelous discussions of the mechanics
> >> that
> >> have extended into the 21st. It's not a difficult concept to grasp,
> > but
> >> one does have to read far more than just Popper's view of science,
as
> >> well as recognize that what Popper offered in the way of testing
was
> >> nothing novel.
> >>
> >> Kirk
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> >> Curator of Polychaetes
> >> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> >> Research & Collections Branch
> >> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> >> 900 Exposition Blvd
> >> Los Angeles CA 90007
> >> Phone: 213-763-3233
> >> FAX: 213-746-2999
> >> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> >> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard Zander wrote:
> >>> I think the desperation to get exact results is response to such
> >>> self-serving nonsense as Ernest Rutherford's comment:
> >>> "The only true science is physics, all else is stamp collecting."
> >>>
> >>> Brock has nicely shown the difference (and similarities) between
> > hard
> >>> sciences and systematics, see my collection of papers on such
stuff
> > at:
> >>> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/EvSy/2.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *****************************
> >>> 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
> >>> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> >>> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> >>> *****************************
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk
> >>> Fitzhugh
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:58 PM
> >>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids
> >>>
> >>> I'd be fascinated to actually see a valid deduction of morphology
> > from a
> >>> moleculoid tree, or vice versa. It's not that difficult to follow
> > the
> >>> rules of deduction, so why not show us? I continue not to
understand
> > why
> >>> the most basic mechanics of testing that have been established for
> > all
> >>> fields of science aren't being applied here.
> >>>
> >>> Incongruence/congruence is a shame. It's meaningless. You're
> > comparing
> >>> two disparate hypotheses that have no relevance to each other. The
> > only
> >>> relevance those hypotheses have is to the characters used to infer
> > the
> >>> respective hypotheses. The nature of the evidence to which you
refer
> > is
> >>> only evidence prompting particular hypotheses, not valid test
> > evidence.
> >>> Kirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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