[Taxacom] [SCIAROIDEA_L] AW: [SCIAROIDEA_L] on current discussions

Fri Feb 18 22:20:18 CST 2011

Authors of this post have clearly never investigated the beer OR the wines of Australia! 

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: Sciaroidea_L - Sciaroidea Discussion List [SCIAROIDEA_L at LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of Jan Sevcik [sevcikjan at HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: 17 February 2011 23:16
To: SCIAROIDEA_L at LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Subject: Re: [SCIAROIDEA_L] AW: [SCIAROIDEA_L] on current discussions

Dear colleagues and friends,
I agree in most respects with Mathias and understand his feelings, although I am not so pessimistic. I agree that we should protect and propagate good revisionary taxonomy against some fashionable trends but, as said by Vlad, Zookeys and Zootaxa are examples that it works and taxonomy can well reach Impact factor above 1.
Phylogenetic studies are interesting and important but, of course, they should be based on good knowledge of particular species and this stage has not yet been achieved in fungus gnats, especially considering tropical fauna. That was why, for example, I suggested not to use the name Dziedzickia so often until you know true European Dziedzickia marginata and also terminalia of Palaeodocosia (inlcuding all its fossil and recent synonyms) and also many similar species and genera in the tropics. You can not say, for example, that erecting Pectinepsia made Dziedzickia paraphyletic, because your "Dziedzickia" is nothing, only a complex of genera more or less different from D. marginata. Pectinepsia is well defined by the characters on its terminalia, similarly as Chalastonepsia orientalis on one hand and the other Chalastonepsia on the other (belonging possibly to different genus). The Oriental and other tropical materials are full of such problematic species (Gnoristinae are particularly well represented) and I think we should know them firstly at species level and eventually continue with phylogenetic studies.
Best wishes and greetings to all from the Czech Republic (not very far from Germany). BTW, speaking about nations, making and drinking good beer is a definite synapomorphy of German and Czech people, and producing good wine is common to California and Germany (including Alsace which makes Germany paraphyletic:-)), so here we have our phylogeny clear.:-)
Jan

e-mail:
sevcikjan at hotmail.com

snail-mail:

Jan Sevcik
Department of Biology & Ecology
University of Ostrava
Chittussiho 10
CZ-710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
 or
Silesian Museum
Tyrsova 1
CZ-746 01 Opava, Czech Republic

________________________________
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:51:31 +0000
From: mjaschhof at YAHOO.DE
Subject: [SCIAROIDEA_L] AW: [SCIAROIDEA_L] on current discussions
To: SCIAROIDEA_L at LISTS.MCGILL.CA

Dear Vladimir,

the approach you describe is the practical one: take the job that the market has to offer, and make the job as good as possible in order to make yourself competetive. But there MUST BE a rationale behind the "contemporary", at least I have the ambition to be part of a construction team that builds, for centuries, on a building called classification. This is what I am interested in, and I know very well how much privileged my current position is. The point is your rhetorical questions: There MUST BE sufficient time to produce solid results, otherwise I must delimit myself on tackling research topics that are realistic. To say well I do not have the resources to do a good job is no excuse for poor science, it would be the end of what I understand IS science. I know this my view is not natural nowadays, the opinion is modern to say well good science is what is successfully selling on the market. If this is all what is left of science, then I prefer to become a taxi driver. And there MUST BE social recognition of descriptive taxonomy, and if there is nothing left of it, we all must fight for that we receive the reputation we deserve. The Swedish Taxonomy Initiative is an example for that these ideas are NOT just unworldly. But the only chance we have (and the most difficult problem) is to perform in unity - there is too much selfishness in our thinking and acting (as we were trained to be competitors). I myself cannot believe that it is alone a technical, a logistical thing that will save taxonomy from dying out completely. The major advances must happen in our minds.

And I think there ARE differences between nations that are important enough to be recognized by us as we are discissing here. These differences are one of the reasons why we sometimes talk at cross-purposes.

Greetings to all participating,

Mathias

Dr Mathias Jaschhof
Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut
Eberswalder Strasse 90
D-15374 Müncheberg
Germany

private:
Thälmann-Ring 64b
D-17491 Greifswald
Germany
Phone +49-3834-428657

________________________________
Von: Vladimir Blagoderov <vblago at GMAIL.COM>
An: SCIAROIDEA_L at LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 16. Februar 2011, 22:27:17 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [SCIAROIDEA_L] on current discussions

Dear Kai and all,

I do not think there are any geographical differences in our approaches, purely sociological ones :) Students and researchers have to produce quick results, this is one of the basic facts of contemporary Western science. How many of us are being paid for describing species? How many of us can afford to spend several years or decades for well-worked revision of a large group? I would think that it is virtually impossible to tackle large taxonomic work single-handed. That is where the community may have its say. Having tools for communication and collaboration we should be able to address these questions together.

Taxonomy on FGO that we shall update (hopefully soon) will be open for you, experts, providing that you know how to edit it - so in no time we could have the best reference ever.

By the way, I think it is possible to show TaxNet topics on FGO, Irina tested it recently

Cheers,

Vlad

On 16 February 2011 20:31, Kai Heller <kaiheller at gmx.de<mailto:kaiheller at gmx.de>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

with great interest I am following the intense communication on this list. I have been reading TAXACOM posts for many years, but never found myself competent enough to take part in the discussions. It was a great idea to create this Sciaroidea specific list.

At first I want to express my thanks to Mathias for his true words. His opinions are nearly identical with mine. (This is apparently our common "German" cultural imprint, which is independent of East or West  ;-) )  Only a solid basic work on species level over many years provides oneself with the necessary "humility" and experience to be able to get clearer ideas about phylogenetic concepts. Unfortunately young students don´t have that time nowadays, because significant results must be presented nearly immediately. Trees need time to grow for many years, before the first fruits become ripe.

Still at the ground (species) level I am mainly interested to know species. That´s way I was following the multiple intents about how to assemble complete and correct (!) species lists over some time. Here again it is a question of "bottom up" or "top down". The EOL approach is very much "top dow", whereas FGO has a more open structure and I am curious about Vladimir´s and Björn´s taxonomic relaunch and will try to help improving it. My personal effort during the last weeks was editing the genus Cornyoptera on Wikispecies<http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Corynoptera>. The open accessibility and the quick results have a splendid charm, although I know in principle, that a good database structure is preferable.

Finally a technical remark: Obviously most of you prefer the more traditional communication via mailing lists than e.g. the newly presented possibilities on TaxNet<http://192.38.114.240/elgg/>. The Dipterist´s forum in my view has its advantages concerning storage of large pictures and other files, necessary for cooperation, but at the moment it still seems not be the appropriate medium. Time must show, if preferences will change and which of the multiple forums will find acceptance (if any). Anyway I will be posting this mail also on TaxNet. Any response is welcome on both routes.

May the Sciaroid community prosper and grow and may especially the sciarid and non-sciarid workers get into closer cooperation.

Cheers, Kai

--
Kai Heller
Arthur-Zabel-Weg 25
D-24226 Heikendorf

kaiheller at gmx.de<mailto:kaiheller at gmx.de>
Tel. +49 431 2379662

--
Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS
Department of Entomology
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6629 (office)
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6895 (SBIL)
Fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

e-mail:
vlab at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:vlab at nhm.ac.uk>
vblago at gmail.com<mailto:vblago at gmail.com>

Fungus Gnats Online:
www.sciaroidea.info<http://www.sciaroidea.info/>

For more information on Sciaroidea see www.sciaroidea.info If you have problems with the listserv contact Chris Borkent, chris.borkent at mail.mcgill.ca
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to listserv at lists.mcgill.ca with SIGNOFF SCIAROIDEA_L in the body of the email.
To access and search the archives of the list visit http://lists.mcgill.ca/archives/Sciaroidea_L.html

For more information on Sciaroidea see www.sciaroidea.info

If you have problems with the listserv contact Chris Borkent, chris.borkent at mail.mcgill.ca

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to listserv at lists.mcgill.ca with SIGNOFF SCIAROIDEA_L in the body of the email.

To access and search the archives of the list visit http://lists.mcgill.ca/archives/Sciaroidea_L.html