[Taxacom] Read... and believe...

Tue Sep 8 07:21:23 CDT 2009

> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Thanks for the warning, John, but Chris isn't a nasty person....

Your choice of course, and if you know the person in order to make that
assumption then well and good.

> In response to you response about the orangutan theory, I would say
that
> convergence in morphology/behaviour among apes is always going to be
more
> likely than EXACT convergence in base sequences in their DNA. The more
> complex a shared character, the less likely it is due to convergence.
If
> you found two species with an IDENTICAL and extremely complex
structure,
> unique to them, this would be the strongest case for synapomorphy. A
long
> sequence of bases is such a complex character. Sticking a roof on your
hut
> is not so complex! :)

'Complexity' is a personal judgment, and whether that represents an
influencing factor in an evolutionary process has to be demonstrated.
Same for convergence.

John Grehan

> 
> ________________________________________
> 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: Tuesday, 8 September 2009 12:29 a.m.
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> Be warned. Some people on this list can get quite nasty when it comes
to
> posting off-list responses. I did it by accident and I had individuals
> threatening to sue me. Not everyone on this list necessarily has a
> collegial perspective.
> 
> 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: Monday, September 07, 2009 5:49 AM
> To: Chris Lyal
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> 
> Hope you don't mind me replying to the list on this Chris, but it
quite
> nicely illustrates the sort of confusions that can occur in
> interpretation of another's words
> 
> [Roger said] >If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does
that
> mean that we can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if
it
> had been labelled B?
> 
> [Roger didn't say] >If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B
does
> that mean that everything that has ever been labelled as A is species
B,
> or vice versa?
> 
> Your first example is like this:
> Specimens are labelled A, then some of them get reidentified as (new)
> species C. A is then synonymised with B. So you say that C would
follow
> into synonymy with B!!! I say that we can indeed think of those
original
> A's as if they had been labelled B, and the ones that were incorrectly
> labelled A were also effectively incorrectly labelled B!
> 
> Second example:
> > he formulated a concept of a parasitoid species with very few hosts
> Again, if some A's were misidentified (and really C), and A becomes a
> synonym of B, then the misidentified A's become misidentified B's!!!
No
> problem!
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Chris Lyal [C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 9:25 p.m.
> To: Stephen Thorpe
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> 
> There are numerous specimens in the NHM collections that bear more
than
> one identification label, as successive taxonomists have reidentified
> them.  I've (naturally) done it myself, for example when I've examined
a
> species and decided that the specimens previously identified as it
> represent more than one entity, the 'original' species and a new
> species.  Following the logic 'A is considered a synonym of B so we
can
> treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
> labelled B' means that if the original species was synonymised with
> something else my new species would automatically fall synonym as
well.
> 
> 
> That is a formal example, but there are many informal ones.  For
> example, one of the UK's parasitoids has been recorded from scores of
> hosts; examination of vouchers by one of my colleagues led him to the
> understanding that most of these records were misidentifications, and
he
> formulated a concept of a parasitoid species with very few hosts.
> However, 'if everything labelled A..' is correct, his concept must
fall.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen
Thorpe
> Sent: 07 September 2009 10:12
> To: Roger Hyam; Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> 
> [Roger wrote] A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy.
> If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that we
> can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
> labelled B? Most taxonomists will answer this question with "That
> depends".
> 
> [reply] One bit at a time:
> > A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy
> Really? Why? If I stick my flag in the ground and say everything in
all
> directions from here until we hit the sea is hereby named "Australia",
> and somebody else does the same to a different bit of ground but dubs
it
> "New Holland", then these names are synonyms even though neither of us
> knew where the coastline was ...
> >If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that
we
> can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
> labelled B?
> Yes! Please provide a counterexample!
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
> [rogerhyam at mac.com]
> Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 8:55 p.m.
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Read... and believe...
> 
> Thank you everyone for your interest in my blog and thanks Jim for
> posting it to the list.
> 
> I didn't announce the blog to Taxacom myself as I thought it might
> provoke a "response".
> 
> Here is the link to the post in case you have not followed this thread
> from the start.
> 
> http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/598 "Nomenclature is Dead! Long Live
> Barcode Taxa!"
> 
> I'll not respond to everyone in detail - I think most of the issues
have
> been covered before in numerous places. You could try this posting
> (which I think may address Tony's points ) if you really must read
more
> and haven't read it already:
> 
> http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/526 "Taxa, Taxon Names and Globally
> Unique Identifiers in Perspective"
> 
> A world without taxon concepts also lacks synonymy.
> 
> If, for example, A is considered a synonym of B does that mean that we
> can treat everything that has ever been labelled A as if it had been
> labelled B? Most taxonomists will answer this question with "That
> depends".
> 
> My contention is that if it depends on some ones opinion then it can't
> be *reproduced* in the future when that person is dead. It can only be
> approximated to. Which is fine but let us be honest about it.
> 
> I will really cherish Richard Petit's "truly pathetic piece of
verbiage"
> comment. I love it.  It beats the "somewhat obscure" that was my
> previous favourite - from a tutor some 20 years ago.
> 
> The fun bit is that people don't respond to "pathetic verbiage", they
> tend to ignore it or laugh. I suspect, therefore, that I touch a nerve
> with my comments - which was my evil intention.
> 
> I have updated that strapline on my blog to "truly pathetic verbiage"
> is honour of this.
> 
> Compassion,
> 
> Roger
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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