[Taxacom] barcode of life
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jun 29 23:56:29 CDT 2010
I cast no Stones ... just the odd Beatle!
Cheers,
Noah Fents
________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 30 June, 2010 4:25:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] barcode of life
Careful there, champ.....
Lest ye cast too many stones, first review this:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/1112089/Taxacom_2006-09
Now, by my reckoning, you started posting to Taxacom in July 2009, and hence
are only represented in about 15% of the time period covered by the word
cloud; yet you're clearly larger than I am (having myself posted throughout
the entire period).
Not sure if Brian O'Meara can easily generate a revised version of this, but
I bet the trend has continued.
Aloha,
Rich
P.S. Haven't we settled the Barcode thing long ago? It's a MAGNIFICENT tool
for identifications (or at least narrowing down possible identifications).
It also can point to possible (note my use of the word *possible*) cryptic
species*. And not even the most ardent Barcode evangelists believe they
should be used to *define* species boundaries (....right, David?) It seems
to me that this debate is mostly a consequence of (mercifully) slow Taxacom
traffic in recent weeks.
*Definition of "Cryptic Species": populations for which assignment of
distinct species-level taxon names best serves the communicative needs of
biologists, but which are not immediately/obviously distinguishable on the
basis of gross morphology.
P.P.S. It wasn't easy, but I think I did manage to pack more words into the
"P.S." than the original text -- at least if you include this "P.P.S.". It
even has its own footnote. So there.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:22 PM
> To: Neal Evenhuis; Kenneth Kinman
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] barcode of life
>
> otherwise known as "Pyling it on"! :)
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
> Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wed, 30 June, 2010 3:17:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] barcode of life
>
> It's not often that a P.S. is longer than the original text.
> This is entering dangerous territory where you may be
> competing with Rich Pyle. Be careful ....
>
> ;-)
>
> At 5:09 PM -1000 6/29/10, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > I agree that using COI alone, or any other gene
> sequence alone,
> >as the single marker for species delimitation, is a bad
> idea. Until we
> >have whole genome sequences for a very large number of
> species, perhaps
> >a combination of two or three independent genes (of which
> COI is just
> >one) would be a good compromise. What the other one or two
> genes that
> >would best evolve at different rates (than COI), I can't say.
> > In any case, I find it
> >disturbing that COI gene sequences would too often be used to excuse
> >naming new full species, as opposed to subspecies or
> populations, based
> >on some arbitrary number of changes in that single gene.
> Barcoding for
> >identification of populations is probably valuable, but
> whether those
> >populations are subspecies or full species is a whole
> different matter
> >that a single gene cannot possibly determine across the
> whole gamut of
> >organismal evolutionary rates. Bar Code of Life based on
> this single
> >gene has its place at this time, and may even be useful as a species
> >deliimitator in some taxa. However, extrapolating beyond those
> >limitations (without corroboration from other lines of
> evidence) can be
> >a risky proposition that will cast doubt upon the work of those who
> >delve too quickly into that kind of speculation based solely on a
> >single gene sequence.
> > ----------Ken
> >Kinman
> >P.S. I am still convinced that the earlier (and still common)
> >fascination with the 16S ribosomal gene sequence (used for
> delimiting
> >much broader taxa) was equally suspectible to overextrapolation. To
> >this day, such overextrapolation seems to continue to be a
> persistent
> >impediment to a true understanding of the higher level evolution of
> >prokaryotes, early eukaryotes, and even how various subgroups of
> >metazoans are related to one another. Once scientists get
> addicted to
> >a particular gene sequence, it is an extremely difficult
> addiction (and
> >point of view) to argue against. Once a single gene
> sequence (COI or
> >16S RNA) becomes a favorite of federal funding, there is an
> INCREASING
> >risk that a growing number of researchers will
> overextrpolate from and
> >overinvest funding on those particular genes. Unfrotunately but not
> >surprising.
> > It's similar to the media's current fascination with
> the Gulf
> >Oil spill, but they will totally ignore other environmental threats
> >until it is also too late. They almost always try to close the barn
> >door well after it is too late. Reactivity continues to be
> the norm,
> >and proactivity is unfortunately relatively uncommon and
> unprofitable.
> >I guess it is no surprise that big corporations are often tempted to
> >cut corners (penny wise, but pound foolish). Oil companies are the
> >present targets of public and media scrutiny, but that only
> allows Wall
> >Street to slip back into their old habits. Letting the latter take
> >advantage of the most recent events shows how the media can
> overreact
> >to one problem and then be totally distracted from covering another
> >major problem. Not to excuse Wall Street greed, but perhaps
> it is at
> >the root of Oil companies cutting corners to keep their stock prices
> >up. Either way, it is overpaid CEOs and their middle men
> that rake in
> >the absurd salaries and stock options, and the real
> lower-level workers
> >in their companies (a very few who become whistle-blowers to abuses)
> >are far less well paid and likely to become fired, demoted, or
> >scapegoats for their superiors. Anyway, this is getting a
> little too
> >far afield from taxonomy, but I guess these problems tend to trickle
> >down from governmental funding at the top to those getting
> some benefit
> >(large or
> >small) from those spending decisions. Suffice it to say that
> >superificial PR too often prevails and superficial and
> repetitive media
> >is more likely to repeat that PR than to dig deeper for the less
> >exciting truth. In the present scheme of things, anyone who still
> >believes that the meek shall inherit the Earth are in for a
> long wait
> >and further disappointment. PR, money, and media access are
> still the
> >major power brokers, and the meek have little influence
> whatsoever, and
> >then only by rare accidents of very marginal media coverage.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >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
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list