[Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans:implications for taxonomy!

[John Grehan]

Your interpretation of my position appears to be in error. I do not deny
that there is evidence against the orangutan theory.

As for scientists being 'fair game', I prefer to look at scientific
propositions being 'fair game' but only so far as being subject to
critique (including the orangutan theory).

John Grehan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz] 
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:37 PM
To: John Grehan; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than
Americans:implications for taxonomy!

except that I don't deny that there is evidence for human-orangutan
relationship, I'm just not denying that there is also evidence
against...

Anyway, it was just my little "dig"! I just think people who put
themselves out there, like entertainers and politicians, are fair game
for that sort of thing - don't step out into the public arena if you
have a fragile ego! Luckily, your ego is not so fragile, so that is good
...

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
[jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 3:12 p.m.
To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans:
implications for taxonomy!

I know its always tempting to get a sideways dig in, but its no more
informative than to say that its "up there with Thorpian denial of the
evidence that points to the human-orangutan relationship"

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 5:53 PM
To: Richard Pyle; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Jim Croft'
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans:
implications for taxonomy!

>So... if I understand you correctly... you're under the
delusi...err....impression that "real" species boundaries exist in
nature outside of human imagination and convenience -- correct?

It is manifestly self-evidently so! To deny this is up there with
Grehanian denial of the evidence that points to the human-chimp
relationship!
Importantly, though, I am NOT saying that species boundaries are ALWAYS
absolutely precise and clear, and indeed, there isn't an absolutely
precise boundary between Australia and ocean either - the tide goes in
and out and it is a fuzzy boundary. Nevertheless, Australia does have
"real" boundaries in nature outside of human imagination and convenience
-- correct?

To see the "real" species boundaries, you only have to imagine a world
in which there were none. I hope you have the capacity for imagination!
:) In such a world, every morphotype would grade imperceptibly into
every other morphotype. Species boundaries would have to be imposed
completely arbitrarily.

I repeat a previous analogy: there are heavy people and there are light
people, but it is not a very useful classification because of the
continuum between them. But if all people of a certain intermediate
weight class died out, then we could classify people usefully by weight.
It would not be a taxonomic classification, but it could be! Imagine a
world with two extant species of Homo, morphologically identical except
that one species were 30-60kg, and the other species 70-120kg as
adults...

Stephen

________________________________________
From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 9:36 a.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Jim Croft'
Subject: RE: Why Australians are more real than Americans: implications
for taxonomy!

> Yes, Richard, species ARE real entities in the world! They might not 
> have existed in a world where there was an unbroken continuum between 
> diverse morphologies, but in our world there are "gaps" which break 
> the biotic realm up into species.

Please... for the sake of us all... don't get me started. :-)

So... if I understand you correctly... you're under the
delusi...err....impression that "real" species boundaries exist in
nature outside of human imagination and convenience -- correct?

If so, we are operating under fundamentally different presumptions about
the nature of biodiversity, so we will never arrive at a mutual
understanding of what is meant by a "taxon concept circumscription"*.

No sense cluttering the list again with this debate -- there are enough
iterations of it in the Taxacom archives.

Aloha,
Rich

*Note: My use of the elaborated term "taxon concept circumscription" is
to disguish it from "species concept" (in the sense of "biological
species concept", "phylogenetic species concept", etc.) -- which is an
equally contentious and very-much related debate, but still quite
different from the "species are real" debate.
_______________________________________________

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