[Taxacom] Paper request

Wed Mar 10 13:45:08 CST 2010

Hi,

does any one of you access to the following pdf:

Mielke, W. 1997. New findings of interstitial Copepoda from Punta
Morales, Pacific coast of Costa Rica . Microfauna Mar. 11: 271-280.

if so I will really appreciate to get a copy, I've been trying to get
the paper for a while without success so far.

thanks in advance

sergio

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM,  <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
>        taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Ladderising phylogenetic trees (Kenneth Kinman)
>   2. Re: Ladderising phylogenetic trees (Curtis Clark)
>   3. Ladderising phylogenetic trees (Kenneth Kinman)
>   4. Re: Ladderising phylogenetic trees (Curtis Clark)
>   5. Re: Ladderising phylogenetic trees (Richard Zander)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:39:14 -0600
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <952-4B96C002-2934 at storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>
> Dear All,
>     I was looking at Laura Novick's webpage, and I am a little troubled
> by one statement:  "Our analyses documented persistent misconceptions...
> Evolution as an anagenic rather than a cladogenic process."
>      Perhaps the persistent misconception is actually hers in assuming
> that speciation is always cladogenic?  I would think a psychologist
> would be a little more open-minded about it.
>       --------Ken
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond wrote:
> Dr. Laura Novick, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University, has studied
> and published on the way students think and reason with cladograms,
> ladderised and not.
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/novick/evol_diagrams.html
> I haven't read her papers or webpage carefully, but it looks like her
> results indicate there are real differences in the way students parse
> one or the other.
> regards,
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:28:08 -0800
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <4B9703B8.7040406 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 3/9/2010 1:39 PM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
>
>>       I was looking at Laura Novick's webpage, and I am a little troubled
>> by one statement:  "Our analyses documented persistent misconceptions...
>> Evolution as an anagenic rather than a cladogenic process."
>>        Perhaps the persistent misconception is actually hers in assuming
>> that speciation is always cladogenic?  I would think a psychologist
>> would be a little more open-minded about it.
>
> "Bad anagenesis" is the belief that modern forms are descended from
> other modern forms ("Humans are descended from monkeys"). I found this
> belief common among "pre-evolutionary" students. Perhaps that's what she
> means.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:59:52 -0600
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: [Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <954-4B971938-2847 at storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>
> Hi Curtis,
>       I don't think that is what she meant, given that she make the
> broad statement that: "There is no evidence to support anagenesis as a
> mechanism of speciation."  She seems to be dismissing the idea of
> anagenetic speciation, be it "bad" or "good".
>       What I really worry about are the students who she might be
> negatively influencing by branding their ideas as misconceptions.   She
> seems to be branding all anagenetic evolution as a misconception (just
> as strict phylogeneticists brand all formal paraphyletic taxa as
> unnatural and/or "unscientific").
>         ----------Ken Kinman
> P.S.  As I noted earlier this year, I am not convinced that "Humans are
> descended from monkeys" is a case of "bad" anagenesis.  If New World
> monkeys and Old World monkeys are a paraphyletic grouping that evolved
> into apes, then even that is not a real case of "bad" anagenesis.
> However, I WOULD agree that saying that humans evolved from chimpanzees
> almost certainly is a case of "bad" anagenesis, and worthy of being
> branded as such.  Chimps appear to be a clade whereas "monkeys" seem to
> be a grade (a paraphyletic grouping that I would NOT be in favor of
> formally naming, any more that I recognize the old Class "Pisces").  But
> the paraphyletic Class Sarcopterygia is a whole different matter,
> especially since so few species still exist (and is the most likely
> major group of vertebrates facing extinction in this century).  The most
> primitive of the lungfish (in Queensland, Australia) has been in the
> news in the last few days as more threats to its survival are surfacing
> once again.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Curtis Clark wrote:
> "Bad anagenesis" is the belief that modern forms are descended from
> other modern forms ("Humans are descended from monkeys"). I found this
> belief common among "pre-evolutionary" students. Perhaps that's what she
> means.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:22:51 -0800
> From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <4B97AB3B.2080905 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 3/9/2010 7:59 PM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
>> Hi Curtis,
>>         I don't think that is what she meant, given that she make the
>> broad statement that: "There is no evidence to support anagenesis as a
>> mechanism of speciation."  She seems to be dismissing the idea of
>> anagenetic speciation, be it "bad" or "good".
>
> But in fact she is correct in that regard. I don't doubt the occurrence
> of anagenesis (there are abundant examples both from living organisms
> and from fossils), but I have yet to see evidence of anagenesis giving
> rise to a new species without lineage-splitting. Of course, if species
> are human constructs (which I reject, but it seems a majority of list
> members support), and we define species as the result of cladogenesis,
> then it is a tautology.
>
>>         What I really worry about are the students who she might be
>> negatively influencing by branding their ideas as misconceptions.   She
>> seems to be branding all anagenetic evolution as a misconception (just
>> as strict phylogeneticists brand all formal paraphyletic taxa as
>> unnatural and/or "unscientific").
>
> So if a student says that the existence of contemporaneous dinosaur and
> human tracks in Texas supports a recent creation of the Earth, we harm
> that student by branding it a misconception? I don't think she's
> branding anagenetic evolution as a misconception (I don't think she
> addresses it), but rather anagenetic speciation. Inasmuch as anagenetic
> speciation is largely (outside this list) regarded as a discredited idea
> of the past, one has to draw the line somewhere. We all know where
> "teaching the controversy" leads.
>
>> P.S.  As I noted earlier this year, I am not convinced that "Humans are
>> descended from monkeys" is a case of "bad" anagenesis.
>
> Students have a modern monkey species in mind (however ill-conceived it
> might be) rather than a higher taxon. If I were instead to say "Humans
> are descended from vertebrates", the students would not "personalize" it
> so much.
>
>
> --
> Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
> University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:22:39 -0600
> From: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees
> To: "Curtis Clark" <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>,
>        <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <471E2B0E09E14643942D99FC6AD54E6601862AD7 at MBGMail01.mobot.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Well, okay, say anagenesis is gradual evolutionary change, and say
> cladogenesis is a split. You must have both to get speciation unless you
> have fossils or a time machine to see what the ancestor looked like
> before anagenesis alone forced descendants into a different species
> according to some species concept.
>
> If we have a split alone, unless the products change (in my opinion
> something more than non-coding base changes), we get two isolated
> populations of the same species. If "split" means both anagenetic and
> cladogenic processes are involved, we have no argument.
>
> Clearly the original thought about "anagenetic evolution" was not clear,
> more a slogan along the lines of "all splits are speciation" which is
> untrue as abundantly demonstrated in publications on molecular
> evolution.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of these methods:
>
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or use a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 48, Issue 9
> **************************************
>

-- 
Sergio Vargas R., M.Sc.
Molecular Geo- and Palaeobiology Lab.
Dept. of Geo- & Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology and Geobiology
LMU München
Richard-Wagner Str. 10
80333 Munich, Germany
tel. +49 89 2180 17929
s.vargas at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
sergio.vargasr at ecci.ucr.ac.cr