[Taxacom] New lizard species

Tue Jun 8 16:31:20 CDT 2010

>The other issues, of course, is the need to tighten up the definition of what is meant by the term "character" in future editions of the Code. I feel Stephen Thorpe's interpretation is an absurd one - it is not the definition of character that taxonomists generally understand. However, I can also see that the current wording can allow that interpretation (particularly by a non-taxonomist), so there is a need for clarification

for the umpteenth time:

ICZN glossary: 
character, n. 
Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa

it doesn't matter what taxonomists usually understand by 'character', it matters what the ICZN means by the term, and they have defined it in a suitably broad and unrestricted (as it should be) sense. They have no mandate to restrict the range of possible characters which might have taxonomic relevance ...

note that there is nothing to say that the current bunch of ICZN commissioners understand the Code any better than anyone else ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
To: Dan Lahr <daniel.lahr at gmail.com>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 3:42:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Last month Randy Mooi and I published a paper in Zootaxa on the lack of
character data (synapomorphies, homologies) generally provided in molecular
systematic papers. The paper was discussed briefly on this forum, but I
think was incorrectly perceived as simply a molecular systematics versus
morphological systematics issue. However, our concerns extended to broader
issues, including: (1) lack of character evidence provided in molecular
studies (generally the fascination is with support statistics, rather than
the identification of underlying character support); (2) node-based (rather
than character-based) definitions of taxa; (3) use of methods that are
essentially phenetic; (4) allocation of a secondary role of morphological
data. The first two issues are at the root of the current thread on the
lizard species.

The other issues, of course, is the need to tighten up the definition of
what is meant by the term "character" in future editions of the Code. I feel
Stephen Thorpe's interpretation is an absurd one - it is not the definition
of character that taxonomists generally understand. However, I can also see
that the current wording can allow that interpretation (particularly by a
non-taxonomist), so there is a need for clarification.

Tony

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Dan Lahr <daniel.lahr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kim brings up a good point (again).
>
> There is no escape, molecular data and the insights they enable are
> just going to increase. However, the ICZN and ICBN, in my view, are
> not completely incompatible with these kind of data. After all,
> despite some dispute, both methods are indeed describing attributes of
> organisms - the description based on a tree analysis adds another
> layer of complexity, but how much is this different from a principal
> component analysis?
>
> Stephen Thorpe's interpretation for instance is a valid one (which I
> agree with by the way), although not the "right" interpretation in the
> current commissioner's views, and that is ok, it is the reason we have
> commissioners. His view is valid in the sense that the work is indeed
> describing attributes for these organisms. Could they have done a
> better job at describing these attributes? Probably, but the principle
> that their work is describing organismal attributes is still there.
> There is nothing fundamentally different in morphological versus
> molecular interpretations, and although the argument that the lizard
> papers insights come from populational attributes is valid, most
> morphological interpretations are also referring to populations not
> single individuals, as has been pointed out.
>
> The Codes are paramount in promoting stability and have been the best
> solution we've had for more than a hundred years (is it 200 yet?). I
> know there have been a few arguments in this listserv about the
> Phylocode, but I was wandering if anybody brought up the fact that the
> Phylocode relies on the current phylogenetic paradigm to describe
> lineages, and if tomorrow we discover that this paradigm is wrong, the
> whole stability goes down the drain. The Codes do not rely on a
> specific phylogenetic paradigm for labeling discrete units in nature
> and that is their strength. This is not incompatible with molecular
> surveys.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/8/2010 7:36 AM, Jason Mate wrote:
> >> P.S. OK, I thought of one thing that could happen, Phylocode will take
> over!
> >
> > It will anyway, just by virtue of the orthodoxy that is build in to the
> > code. This article, and the one on Zaprionus I mentioned are just a few
> > articles representing a new era. The wealth of molecular data and the
> > corresponding insights in the relationships between taxa/clades is going
> > to result in more and more situations that are beyond the purview of the
> > Code.
> >
> > Kim
> > --
> > http://www.kimvdlinde.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Lahr
> -------------------------------------------------
> PhD candidate
> Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
> U Massachusetts- Amherst
> 319 Morrill Science Center, Amherst
> Amherst, MA 01003
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Assistant Director for Collections
International Institute for Species Exploration
School of Life Sciences
PO Box 874501
Arizona State University
Tempe
AZ 85287-4501
USA.

Phone: (480) 965-8620
Fax: (480) 965-6899
E-mail: gill.anthony at gmail.com
http://sols.asu.edu/faculty/agill.htm
http://species.asu.edu/
_______________________________________________

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