[Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
Robin Leech
releech at telus.net
Sat Jun 25 18:13:39 CDT 2011
Robin (II),
Oh, I don't know. I very much appreciate my wife much more as a solid entity, something concrete (as you say) than as an abstract anything (such as a picture?).
Organisms, representatives, species - I think we are playing with gamesmanship here.
Robin (I)
----- Original Message -----
From: Robinwbruce at aol.com
To: releech at telus.net
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
Hi Robin,
I am not sure about the real thing, but these representatives that you have held in you hands were, in olden times, called organisms. Post-organismal biology has little time for such historical curiosities, after all why try to confront the concrete when the abstract is so much more seductive.
Organisms as the real thing roots to Buffon I believe. If I am in error, my foibles will, I hope, be pointed out.
Robin
(unusual to find two robins on the same thread, especially at this time of year)
In a message dated 6/25/2011 10:43:29 P.M. GMT Daylight Time, releech at telus.net writes:
Who? Me? Robin Leech? I think you are mistaken Michael. I think you have the
wrong guy here.
However, now that I have been brought into the discussion, somewhere back a
bit, in all this messy discussion,
I did strongly disagree with one of you in this thread.
The species is the only real thing. The genera, and all the rest of the
hierarchy created by us is but a structure
we use so that we can see, and which will help us to understand, the
relationship of one species in relation to all the others.
Everything from the genus on up is imaginary, a figment. In all my 70 plus
years of knowing and understanding about species,
I have never yet held a genus or family in my hand. I have held
representatives of many species though, which, in turn, have in
belonged to the human-created genera and families.
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
Hi Robin,
You wrote: 'Michael Heads says the panbiogeographic species concept is "not
special." How does one criticize a species concept with such a
characterization? Is it a valid species concept? Can we ever get an
example?'
MH: I mentioned the paper by Mallet (2010 Biol. Philos.) that dicusses these
issues. Another good one is: Mallet, 2008, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Both the
papers are freely available on the net. I'm not sure what you mean by 'can
we ever get an example'.
RZ: 'He also says the species in diffeent groups is different. Like how? Do
panbiogeographers recognize the usual list of different species concepts and
pick one or the other as appropriate? Or is it something implied and
unstated that cannot be discussed?'
MH: As you wrote in your last mail: 'different species concepts can be most
effectively used for different groups'. The species concept may be different
even in related genera, depending on who revised or sequenced them. Everyone
knows groups in which the species (or genus, or family) concepts are very
narrow, while broad species are accepted in other groups. That's fine -
there is no need to have a single, overarching 'species concept' and we are
suggesting that the search for one is pointless.
RZ: The reason no one can pin down our panbiogeographers is that their
concepts are thin. They can never be strongly confirmed if they are
tergiversated and morphed with every challenge.
MH: Which of our concepts has changed following a challenge? We've been
arguing that species are not special for decades - that's why it's so
satisfying to read Mallet's papers.
Wellington, New Zealand.
My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
--- On Sun, 26/6/11, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:
From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 26 June, 2011, 6:30 AM
I really think all taxacomers might profit from reading Believing Bullsh.t
by Stephen Law. He list 8 ways people immunize their beliefs from contrary
arguments. In addition to cautioning and auditing ourselves for our own
nonsense, I think certain elements characterize how our favorite
panbiogeographers immunize their methods of study from our criticism.
Note here that Michael Heads says the panbiogeographic species concept is
"not special." How does one criticize a species concept with such a
characterization? Is it a valid species concept? Can we ever get an example?
He also says the species in diffeent groups is different. Like how? Do
panbiogeographers recognize the usual list of different species concepts and
pick one or the other as appropriate? Or is it something implied and
unstated that cannot be discussed?
The reason no one can pin down our panbiogeographers is that their concepts
are thin. They can never be strongly confirmed if they are tergiversated and
morphed with every challenge.
Law also cites a Nuclear Option: when backed into a corner, one can also
damn reason itself. That is, if everyone looks to some standard, then for
every -ism, that's our own trip. Hence we hear the foibles of Darwinists,
cladists, and modern synthesists such that all systems of inquiry are so
fraught with problems that who are we to criticize anyone else.
I think exchanges on Taxacom are phenomenally instructive because of the
diversity of foibles in thought we all exhibit, and particularly their
serious critical discussion by others. The panbiogeographers are disengaged
from this process, and the means are clearly discussed in Law's book.
This is not to say that Law does not indulge in his own bullsh.t. His
attacks on theism fails again and again because he attaches handles (e.g.
total good) to the god concept then attacks the handles, then says if there
are no handles, what good is the god concept? He is also the typical
philosopher who relies on reason totally, bows to science but is generally
ignorant of science. For instance he says science cannot explain the
creation of the universe. Nonsense. A physicist named Tryon figured out that
the positive net mass energy of matter equals the negative gravitational
potential of matter. They cancel out and the universe what thus created by
quantum fluctuation involving pair generation in a vacuum. Voila, the
creation of the universe (for more see a book by Barry Parker called
Creation, cheap used at Amazon.com.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Heads
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 7:59 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
Hi Richard,
You wrote that 'a species is still defined most generally as the basic unit
of taxonomy'. This is true in the Mayrian, antidarwinian synthesis. In
Darwin and in panbiogeography the species is not special and the basic unit
is the character or, at the taxonomic level, the taxon (whatever its rank).
You also wrote: 'Suggesting that one should follow one or the other
[biological species concept or darwinian/panbiogeographic species concept]
is not helpful since (1) different species concepts can be most effectively
used for different groups (paraconsistency)...'. Exactly: this is the
panbiogeographic species concept - the 'species' in different groups are not
necessarily equivalent in their branch length or degree of reproductive
isolation.
Michael Heads
Wellington, New Zealand.
My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
--- On Sat, 25/6/11, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:
From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 25 June, 2011, 1:36 AM
Well, sure, usage matters, but a species is still defined most generally as
the basic unit of taxonomy. This extra baggage refers to either
process-based theories, e.g. biological species concept, or the
panbiogeography concept which is vaguely defined as some step in a ranking.
Suggesting that one should follow one or the other is not helpful since (1)
different species concepts can be most effectively used for different groups
(paraconsistency), (2) sometimes just "basic unit of taxonomy" is good
enough for a helpful contribution to science.
"Real"? What is real? Genera are not real? There are theoretic explanations
that describe their evolving, so evolution is not a criterion. I think there
is a lot of rejection of theoretic realities going on nowadays, and I don't
mean alternate realities.
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Michael Heads
Sent: Fri 6/24/2011 12:44 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
Hi Curtis,
Panbiogeography has developed many new or unusual concepts for old ideas and
terms, e.g. evolution, origin, species, dispersal, ancestor etc. These new
concepts are clarified in the panbiogeographic literature, and may often be
confusing if you haven't read it. For example, the concept 'species', as
used by many biologists, is the 'absolute' concept of Mayr - species are
real, subgenera and subspecies are not. 'The species' is the basis of
evolutionary theory, biodiversity assesment and so on. Panbiogeography
instead used the Darwinian, relativistic concept - a species is not special,
and is just the unit between subspecies and subgenera. Geneticists who work
on speciation are now starting to use this and to question why Mayr etc.
were so antidarwinian (see the outstanding article: Mallet, J. 2010. Why was
Darwin's view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists? Biol.
Philos. 25: 497).
Michael
Wellington, New Zealand.
My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
--- On Fri, 24/6/11, Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org> wrote:
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] RES: south-west Australia
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, Robinwbruce at aol.com, jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Received: Friday, 24 June, 2011, 4:58 PM
On 6/22/2011 9:35 PM, Michael Heads wrote:
> You can use it in any of the standard ways and people will know what you
> mean from the context.
How did Robin mean it? How did John mean "null hypothesis"?
Panbiogeography can only seem esoteric, and subject to marginalization,
if it uses technical terms commonly used by other biologists, but with
different meanings, and without the differences being clarified. It's
easy for the rest of us to assume "track", for example, to be a
specialized term in panbiogeography, since it has a multiplicity of
meanings in standard English, but most of us with a biometrics
background would assume we know what "degrees of freedom" and "null
hypothesis" mean, and would only be puzzled, and I admit put off, by
what would seem to be redefinitions.
--
--
Curtis Clark
Cal Poly Pomona
_______________________________________________
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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list