[Taxacom] ***SPAM*** Re: Reproducibility of descriptive data
Stephen Thorpe
s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Mon Sep 14 21:02:35 CDT 2009
A case of "save the genes" rather than save the taxonomic carrier (wearer! :) of the genes!
None of this poses a threat to BSC, though ...
Stephen
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Croft [jim.croft at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 1:52 p.m.
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
c.f. the story of the Norfolk Island Island Boobook Owl, Ninox
novaeseelandiae undulata:
Population down to a single female. Mated through human intervention
with the closely related NZ subspecies. So, even though the genes are
still flying around on the island, looking more or less the same,
technically the subspecies is probably extinct.
Details on Wikipedia, etc.
jim
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:25 AM, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:
>
> This very question came up in a very real way in New Zealand when
> conservationsts were confronted with hybridation that did not conform to
> preconceived ideas of what nature should do.
>
> A female black robin fosterling was given to Chatham Island tits to be
> reared as part of a recovery program for black robins. The fosterling
> decided to mate with a tit instead of another black robin. The result
> was the hatching of a hybrid in 1990. This hybrid was named 'Tobin" and
> then it was killed (I think it was shot).
>
> The execution of Tobin was justified as removing a threat to black robin
> survival. It seems that the conservationists were interested preventing
> inpurities entering into their 'pure' species. Frighteningly reminiscent
> of some political ideologies.
>
> Those who have been on this list for years will recall an earlier
> posting about this.
>
> John Grehan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Don.Colless at csiro.au
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:48 AM
>> To: s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>>
>> I'm intrigued by the notion that one species can hybridise another
> "out of
>> existence". Surely the resulting population,with its new genome, has a
> new
>> status of some kind? How could it still be the "same" species as one
> of
>> the originals?
>>
>> Donald H Colless
>> CSIRO Div of Entomology
>> GPO Box 1700
>> Canberra 2601
>> don.colless at csiro.au
>> tuz li munz est miens envirun
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
>> [s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
>> Sent: 13 September 2009 15:19
>> To: Michael Heads; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Your duck example is a good one, and my previous attempts to deal with
> it
>> were not correct, but now I think I have the answer! My analogy with
> the
>> lowland species being forced up into the montane zone by lowland
> forest
>> clearance was bogus because the same effect could be had from purely
>> natural events like a rise in sea level (not due to human activities)
> or a
>> fire resulting from a lightning strike! The "natural conditions"
> caveat
>> applies to the area where the two populations intermingle, which in my
>> example was the montane area. The fact that the lowlands were changed
> by
>> an artificial means was irrelevant. This does however, suggest that
>> "natural conditions" may still dispose of the duck example, because
> the
>> two populations are intermingling in New Zealand, which isn't in it's
>> natural state. However, I am not going to persue that line of
> argument, as
>> I think I have a better one:
>>
>> >the introduced mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) hybridise with the
>> indigenous grey ducks (A. superciliosa) and the latter are being
>> hybridised out of existence
>> Even if the grey ducks did get hybridised out of existence, this
> doesn't
>> mean that the level of reproductive isolation/incompatibility is zero!
>> What matters is what proportion of matings lead to fertile offspring!
> This
>> proportion could be as low as you like, and yet, given enough time,
> the
>> grey duck could still get hybridised out of existence! If the mallards
>> build their population up to vastly outnumber the grey ducks, then
> even if
>> only 1 in 100 matings lead to fertile offspring, the process could
> still
>> go to completion, could it not?
>>
>> So, nothing you have said suggests that the proportion of matings
> leading
>> to fertile offspring (=level of reproductive
> isolation/incompatibility) is
>> high enough for the two types of duck to be considered the same
> species by
>> the BSC! Phew! :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Heads
>> [michael.heads at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 9:30 p.m.
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Hybridism not the norm: a falsifier doesn't have to be the norm, you
> only
>> need one case and of course there are thousands.
>>
>> Morphotypes: there are plenty of distinct morphotypes below species
> level
>> (e.g. in birds).
>>
>> Species entering New Zealand: This is a common problem in
> conservation. In
>> one example, the introduced mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) hybridise
> with
>> the indigenous grey ducks (A. superciliosa) and the latter are being
>> hybridised out of existence (Gillespie, 1985. The Auk 102: 459).
>>
>> Michael Heads
>>
>> Wellington, New Zealand.
>>
>> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>>
>> --- On Fri, 9/11/09, Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> Subject: RE: ***SPAM*** Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive
> data
>> To: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 8:01 PM
>>
>>
>> Dear Michael:
>> Simply restating one side of a debate doesn't in general add any
> weight to
>> that side over the opposing view! :)
>> If hybridisation was the norm, then things would be very different,
> but if
>> reproductive isolation wasn't the norm, then we simply wouldn't find
>> organisms falling as they do into identifiable morphotypes, and , for
>> example, it wouldn't matter if a few breeding pairs of a vector of a
>> deadly disease entered N.Z., because they would soon be diluted out by
>> hybridisation with what is already here ...
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Heads
>> [michael.heads at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 7:41 p.m.
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Stephen wrote: 'the notion of species in biology makes no sense if you
>> disregard the biological species concept'.
>>
>> Apart from those devoted to Mediaeval Idealist philosophy (Mayr,
> Biology
>> 101 classes, etc.) very few biologists actually believe species are
>> special or that they can be defined somehow, e.g. by interbreeding.
>> 'Species' is simply a point on a trajectory of differentiation,
> somewhere
>> between 'subspecies' and 'subgenus', in any given group. Investigating
>> this trajectory of differentiation will lead somewhere, not trying to
>> define species (the so-called 'species problem'). In second year
> biology
>> we learn that in practice species cannot be defined by actual or
> potential
>> interbreeding, as there are hybrids between good species. This is very
>> common in plants and also in terrestrial and freshwater animals, but
> is
>> now being recorded more often in marine animals, especially around
>> Indonesia- see Hobbs, J.P. et al. 2009. Marine hybrid hotspot at Indo-
>> Pacific biogeographic border. Biology Letters 5: 258-261.
>>
>> Michael Heads
>>
>> Wellington, New Zealand.
>>
>> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>>
>> --- On Fri, 9/11/09, Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>> To: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Mike Dallwitz"
>> <m.j.dallwitz at netspeed.com.au>
>> Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:10 PM
>>
>>
>> [Jim said] Your 'country' analogy is spurious. Like the US, Australia
> is
>> an historical federation, defined by inclusion of various bits of
> land,
>> including disjunct offshore islands and territories. That the bulk of
>> Australia happens to coincide with recognizable continent is an
> irrelevant
>> artefact. Notions of artificial or real in this context have no
> meaning.
>>
>> [reply] You misrepresent my analogy. It is indeed intended to
> demonstrate
>> a distinction between natural and artificial taxon boundaries, and I
> think
>> that, properly understood, the analogy does just that. It is
> irrelevant
>> how Australia is ACTUALLY defined, only that it could have been
> defined by
>> natural boundaries as I suggest in the analogy. On the other hand,
> U.S.A.
>> is not defined by natural boundaries. So, there is a difference
> between
>> U.S.A. as actually defined, and Australia as it could have been
> defined.
>> This difference is analogous to species (Australia) compared with
> genera
>> (U.S.A.)
>>
>> In other words, I am saying that when we talk about species, as
> opposed to
>> genera, we are implicitly choosing to follow natural boundaries (which
> may
>> not be 100% clear cut, but that is a different issue), and the notion
> of
>> species in biology makes no sense if you disregard the biological
> species
>> concept.
>>
>> Consider this: males and females can sometimes be so dimorphic that
> they
>> have little or no morphological similarity. But, NOBODY would consider
>> them to be different species (if they realised that the differences
> were
>> due to sexual dimorphism), not even people who would claim to be using
> a
>> morphological species concept instead of a biological one! So, the
>> biological species concept is firmly entrenched in our notion of
> species
>> in biology, and it provides natural species boundaries (not
> necessarily
>> 100% clear cut boundaries). This is completely lacking in the case of
>> genera, families, etc. These supraspecific taxa are just "convenient
>> monophyletic groups", but species are not...
>>
>> MAIN CONCLUSION 1: There is a fundamental difference in kind between
>> species boundaries on the one hand, and generic (or other) boundaries
> on
>> the other hand, namely that species (and only species) follow natural
>> boundaries (of reproductive isolating mechanisms). To ignore this
>> fundamental difference is likely to lead one astray...
>>
>> [Jim said] Descriptions do not 'define' a concept (at any level).
> They...
>> um...describe it. If you want a definition, you could use the list of
>> those thing you might include in that concept. Species in genera,
>> specimens in species, etc.
>>
>> [reply] Take the case of genera: a taxonomist who describes a new
> genus
>> will include various species in it, say A, B, and C. These species
> must
>> agree with the description of the genus, or else something has gone
> wrong!
>> Now suppose another taxonomist discovers new species D, and places it
> in
>> the above genus. You would have to say that the two taxonomists have
>> different concepts of the genus, because the second one includes D,
> but
>> the first guy/girl doesn't. Most taxonomists, I suggest, would say
> that
>> the concept of the genus has changed only if the description needs
>> rewriting to accommodate D. If D already fits the description
> perfectly
>> well, then the concept of the genus remains the same. Hence, I suggest
>> that descriptions do in fact define generic concepts!
>>
>> In practice, taxon concepts for species are never "settled by
> inclusion"!
>> If the describer of a new species has only a single specimen, that
>> specimen does not fully represent the describer's concept of the new
>> species! The describer will have some hypothetical notion of what it
> would
>> take for another (non-identical looking) specimen to belong to the
> same
>> species. Species descriptions based on a single specimen are not, I
>> suggest, typically just descriptions of that single specimen! Instead,
>> they EMPHASISE THE CHARACTERS OF THAT SPECIMEN WHICH THE DESCRIBER
> THINKS
>> ARE LIKELY TO BE IMPORTANT! The describer's concept will either be
>> confirmed or else falsified by other specimens as they turn up,
> depending
>> upon WHERE THE NATURAL BOUNDARIES ACTUALLY LIE...
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jim Croft [jim.croft at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 9:15 a.m.
>> To: Stephen Thorpe
>> Cc: Mike Dallwitz; TAXACOM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>>
>> Descriptions do not 'define' a concept (at any level). They... um...
>> describe it.
>>
>> If you want a definition, you could use the list of those thing you
>> might include in that concept. Species in genera, specimens in
>> species, etc.
>>
>> Having settled on a concept by inclusion, you can then go about
>> describing it, listing the characters/attributes that, in your mind,
>> set the boundaries. It is conceivable that a taxonomist could account
>> for all relevant specimens, species, etc. This is, after all, why we
>> do revisions. Any character/attribute list is arbitrarily selected
>> and can never be complete.
>>
>> Your 'country' analogy is spurious. Like the US, Australia is an
>> historical federation, defined by inclusion of various bits of land,
>> including disjunct offshore islands and territories. That the bulk of
>> Australia happens to coincide with recognizable continent is an
>> irrelevant artefact. Notions of artificial or real in this context
>> have no meaning.
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Stephen
> Thorpe<s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> wrote:
>> > Jim, put another way:
>> >
>> > Genera are defined by descriptions (= genus boundary
> circumscriptions)
>> >
>> > Species are defined by nominating an individual as the type. Species
>> descriptions (=species boundary circumscriptions) do not define the
>> species. They can be incorrect descriptions of the true boundaries
> (unlike
>> generic descriptions)
>> >
>> > Analogy: Australia can be defined by sticking a flag in the ground
> and
>> saying "I hereby define Australia to be all the land in all directions
>> from this flag to the sea". So, Australia is like a species (it has
>> natural boundaries). U.S.A. is like a genus (it has artificial
>> boundaries).
>> >
>> > Your "taxon concepts" are a mixture of two very different things:
> (1)
>> generic descriptions; and (2) species descriptions.
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: Jim Croft [jim.croft at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 9:46 a.m.
>> > To: Stephen Thorpe
>> > Cc: Mike Dallwitz; TAXACOM
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of descriptive data
>> >
>> > Don't buy this. At all. And I do not think the codes do either.
> Nor
>> > many/most taxonomists. The type does not define the species (which
>> > are in nearly every case variable). It is an exemplar (not always
>> > 'typical' in the English sense) which anchors the name. The extreme
>> > example of this are species that have multiple synonymic types. In
> a
>> > type-defined species, concepts of lumping and splitting have no
>> > meaning - yet we all do it.
>> >
>> > Have a chat to Pete deVries. He would argue that a species knows
> what
>> > a species is and does not care what we call it or think it is.
> Humans
>> > develop a concept of what we think it is, sometimes (maybe even
> often)
>> > a reasonably good approximation of what a species knows it is. And
> we
>> > give a name to this human concept a name.
>> >
>> > There are three things: a species entity, a species concept and
>> > species name. The first is defined by biology and evolution, the
>> > second by humans, and the third is defined by the code and selected
> by
>> > humans.
>> >
>> > The problem we have, and why taxacom exists at all, is someone
> utters
>> > the third, a listener assumes the first, without considering the
>> > second, of which there are often several alternatives.
>> >
>> > jim
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Stephen
> Thorpe<s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz>
>> wrote:
>> >> [Mike Dallwitz wrote] _Whatever_ we want to say about a taxon (e.g.
>> what its boundaries, distribution, abundance, or uses are), we need to
>> define the
>> >> taxon that we want to talk about. And the only way to do that is to
>> describe it in a reproducible way, so that people can identify
> individuals
>> as belonging or not belonging to the taxon
>> >>
>> >> [reply] Species are defined by their name-bearing types (holotypes
> or
>> lectotypes or neotypes or syntypes). A description of a species is a
>> circumscription of its boundaries, according to the describer. So, we
>> don't describe a taxon in order to define it so that we can then talk
>> about boundaries. Rather, by describing it, we ARE talking about its
>> boundaries, but the species is defined by its type.
>> >>
>> >>>describe it in a reproducible way, so that people can identify
>> individuals as belonging or not belonging to the taxon
>> >> No, describing it in a reproducible way only allows people to
> identify
>> individuals as being within or else outside the boundaries of the
> species
>> as circumscribed in the description. These boundaries could be wrong,
> so
>> the description is certainly not a DEFINITION of the species
> (definitions
>> are true by definition and cannot be wrong!)
>> >>
>> >> What you say applies more to genera and other "subjective" taxa,
> but
>> not to species, which are objectively defined once a type is
> designated...
>> >>
>> >> Stephen
>> >>
>> > --
>> > _________________
>> > Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
>> > http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
>> > ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
>> > ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________
>> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
>> ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
>> ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list