[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 75, Issue 18
Rodrigue IDOHOU
rodrigidohou at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 16:58:34 CDT 2012
2012/6/19, taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
<taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:
> 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. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Richard Pyle)
> 2. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Richard Pyle)
> 3. Re: Does the species name have to change when itmoves genus?
> (Paul van Rijckevorsel)
> 4. Re: Does the species name have to change when itmoves genus?
> (Richard Pyle)
> 5. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Roderic Page)
> 6. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Bob Mesibov)
> 7. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Roderic Page)
> 8. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Bob Mesibov)
> 9. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Dilrukshan Wijesinghe)
> 10. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Paul van Rijckevorsel)
> 11. ID requested Asteraceae Curacao (Andre van Proosdij)
> 12. Calling All Biologists: Showcase Science to Policymakers
> (Julie Palakovich Carr)
> 13. (no subject) (D?bora Clivati)
> 14. Re: Does the species name have to change when it moves genus?
> (Nico Franz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:57:49 -1000
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: "'Roderic Page'" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>, "'TAXACOM'"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: 'Nico Franz' <nico.franz at asu.edu>
> Message-ID: <00eb01cd4df1$395c74b0$ac155e10$@bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> There is another way to frame this:
>
> 1) Names assigned to a single type specimen, and the conceptual scope of
> the
> taxon implied by usage of the name left to subjective debate;
>
> 2) Names assigned to an objectively defined taxon (clade), but where parent
> and child can reverse roles.
>
> #1 is Linnean Nomenclature(ICZN, ICNafp, bacteriological Code); # 2 is
> essentially Phylocode.
>
> After two and a half centuries of mostly successful implementation, why
> would we try to re-define how Linnean names work? Why not just adopt a
> system designed to do what you want it to do? Phylocode have too much
> baggage? OK, then define something new.
>
> The real elephant in the room is the one that Paul Kirk articulated: i.e.,
> that the problems related to species epithets changing combinations with
> different genera are downright trivial (and actually almost tractable --
> watch this space) compared with the wholly intractable problem of divining
> implied taxon concepts from scientific names (with or without basionym
> authorships, with or without year, with or without combination
> authorships).
>
> If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
> biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
> combination issue. Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to their
> first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down the usage
> of
> the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon concept.
>
> While such a proposal would be far less provocative (and, hence, much less
> fun); it would certainly be far more *USEFUL* -- and also far more easy to
> implement (i.e., much less disruptive to historical practice).
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:38 PM
>> To: TAXACOM
>> Cc: Nico Franz
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>> moves genus?
>>
>> Nico has put the issue quite elegantly:
>>
>> "The inference gains that come with these names/causal properties
>> associations (seem to have, historically) outweigh(ed) the costs of
> tracking
>> changes."
>>
>> It seems to me we have two alternative ways of naming things. Once we've
>> coined a name, either:
>>
>> 1. names don't change when notions of relationship change, hence we can't
>> (necessarily) infer relationships from name, or
>>
>> 2. names change when notions of relationship change, hence we can infer
>> relationships from names
>>
>> Option 1 means names are stable (great for information retrieval) but
> don't
>> tell you much about relationships (indeed, may be positively misleading
>> if
>> read literally).
>>
>> Option 2 means names are (usually) informative about relationships at
>> some
>> level, but are liable to change at any time.
>>
>> Option 1 means we can't use names to convey relationship, so we need
>> some other way to do this (e.g., phylogenetic trees)
>>
>> Option 2 means we can't retrieve all we know about a taxon by searching
>> on
>> a single name, so we need a way to track all name changes over time
>> (e.g.,
> a
>> global database of synonyms).
>>
>> Taxonomic practise follows option 2, but without a database of synonyms.
>> Arguably in the past option 1 would have been difficult to implement
>> given
>> the varied notion of what "related" might mean. Given that the last few
>> decades have seen "related" become fairly explicitly defined in terms of
>> evolutionary history, might option 1 not be worth reconsidering?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Roderic Page
>> Professor of Taxonomy
>> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College
> of
>> Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of
>> Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>>
>> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>> Skype: rdmpage
>> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
>
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure
> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail
> or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this
> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:02:49 -1000
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Roderic Page'"
> <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>, "'TAXACOM'" <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
> Message-ID: <00ec01cd4df1$ec3c14f0$c4b43ed0$@bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>> yes, Rich, I'm doing it right now!
>
> Excellent!
>
>> And that unregistered pub was already there ... Rod's name just wasn't
>> *registered* ...
>
> Yes, I know (because I'm the one who put it there....)
>
> Rich
>
>
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure
> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail
> or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this
> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:15:59 +0200
> From: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when
> itmoves genus?
> To: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <36A33E63670845978349C363A61E8E2A at polyphylla>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:57 AM
>
> [...]
>> If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
>> biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
>> combination issue. Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to
>> their first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down
>> the usage of the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon
>> concept.
>
> ***
> Yes, that would be most useful (almost essential for many applications)
> but it is nothing "new": this has been done for a very long time, and
> fairly
> widely. Somehow, databases have discontinued this practice?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:35:52 -1000
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when
> itmoves genus?
> To: "'Paul van Rijckevorsel'" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>, "'TAXACOM'"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <00f101cd4df6$8a3dec60$9eb9c520$@bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> It's the "norm" that would be new.....
>
> And no, it wasn't databases that have "discontinued" the practice; it's the
> taxonomists (and other biologists) who have in their publications. The
> push
> to re-establish this practice is largely coming from the "databases".
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:16 PM
>> To: 'TAXACOM'
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when itmoves
>> genus?
>>
>> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:57 AM
>>
>> [...]
>> > If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
>> > biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
>> > combination issue. Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to
>> > their first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down
>> > the usage of the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon
>> > concept.
>>
>> ***
>> Yes, that would be most useful (almost essential for many applications)
> but it
>> is nothing "new": this has been done for a very long time, and fairly
> widely.
>> Somehow, databases have discontinued this practice?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
>
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure
> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail
> or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this
> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:39:31 +0100
> From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <BD4447BF-C7DE-41C6-A6E2-FB17B6A7F3AE at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear Rich,
>
> On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:57, Richard Pyle wrote:
>
>> There is another way to frame this:
>>
>> 1) Names assigned to a single type specimen, and the conceptual scope of
>> the
>> taxon implied by usage of the name left to subjective debate;
>>
>> 2) Names assigned to an objectively defined taxon (clade), but where
>> parent
>> and child can reverse roles.
>>
>> #1 is Linnean Nomenclature(ICZN, ICNafp, bacteriological Code); # 2 is
>> essentially Phylocode.
>>
>> After two and a half centuries of mostly successful implementation, why
>> would we try to re-define how Linnean names work? Why not just adopt a
>> system designed to do what you want it to do? Phylocode have too much
>> baggage? OK, then define something new.
>
> I'm not actually suggesting we change the code, merely the convention to
> automatically change the genus name if a species moves.
>
>>
>> The real elephant in the room is the one that Paul Kirk articulated:
>> i.e.,
>> that the problems related to species epithets changing combinations with
>> different genera are downright trivial (and actually almost tractable --
>> watch this space) compared with the wholly intractable problem of
>> divining
>> implied taxon concepts from scientific names (with or without basionym
>> authorships, with or without year, with or without combination
>> authorships).
>
> Trivial in the sense that if we had all the information on names (synonyms
> included) linked to types we could resolve synonyms computationally, but we
> don't, certainly not at the scale of the 10x5 - 10x6 names that databases
> such as NCBI taxonomy and GBIF deal with. Yes, in principle, it is
> tractable, but why do we contribute to creating the situation in the first
> place?
>
> Personally I suspect the taxon concept issue isn't going to be worth the
> effort expended, unless tackled with some clever tools for inferring context
> from citation, etc. it's simply unscalable. It's a fun problem, but seems
> mostly dragged out to frighten children and reassure ourselves that taxonomy
> is frightfully complicated. Why not focus on what is tractable and will add
> immediate value?
>
>>
>> If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
>> biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
>> combination issue. Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to
>> their
>> first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down the usage
>> of
>> the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon concept.
>
> I'm not proposing a change in how we cite names, and suggestions that embed
> more semantics in names (such as author, date, first name) are just asking
> for trouble http://bit.ly/KQ6o46 Citing a reference for "what I mean by" is
> useful, but I'd be happier if that was linked to actual data.
>
>> While such a proposal would be far less provocative (and, hence, much
>> less
>> fun); it would certainly be far more *USEFUL* -- and also far more easy
>> to
>> implement (i.e., much less disruptive to historical practice).
>
> Ironically, if you read the tea leaves the way I do, we are moving to a
> biodiversity science without names, where specimens will be the unit of
> choice, and taxa will be computational inferences, not vague assertions
> supported by a citation at best. But that's another story...
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
>>
>> Aloha,
>> Rich
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
>>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:38 PM
>>> To: TAXACOM
>>> Cc: Nico Franz
>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>>> moves genus?
>>>
>>> Nico has put the issue quite elegantly:
>>>
>>> "The inference gains that come with these names/causal properties
>>> associations (seem to have, historically) outweigh(ed) the costs of
>> tracking
>>> changes."
>>>
>>> It seems to me we have two alternative ways of naming things. Once we've
>>> coined a name, either:
>>>
>>> 1. names don't change when notions of relationship change, hence we
>>> can't
>>> (necessarily) infer relationships from name, or
>>>
>>> 2. names change when notions of relationship change, hence we can infer
>>> relationships from names
>>>
>>> Option 1 means names are stable (great for information retrieval) but
>> don't
>>> tell you much about relationships (indeed, may be positively misleading
>>> if
>>> read literally).
>>>
>>> Option 2 means names are (usually) informative about relationships at
>>> some
>>> level, but are liable to change at any time.
>>>
>>> Option 1 means we can't use names to convey relationship, so we need
>>> some other way to do this (e.g., phylogenetic trees)
>>>
>>> Option 2 means we can't retrieve all we know about a taxon by searching
>>> on
>>> a single name, so we need a way to track all name changes over time
>>> (e.g.,
>> a
>>> global database of synonyms).
>>>
>>> Taxonomic practise follows option 2, but without a database of synonyms.
>>> Arguably in the past option 1 would have been difficult to implement
>>> given
>>> the varied notion of what "related" might mean. Given that the last few
>>> decades have seen "related" become fairly explicitly defined in terms of
>>> evolutionary history, might option 1 not be worth reconsidering?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Roderic Page
>>> Professor of Taxonomy
>>> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>>> College
>> of
>>> Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of
>>> Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>>>
>>> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>>> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>>> Skype: rdmpage
>>> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>>> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>>> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
>> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use,
>> disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If
>> you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by
>> reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed
>> in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop
>> Museum.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> Skype: rdmpage
> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:57:50 +1000
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: Rod Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <20120619185750.edbc405d.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Rod Page wrote:
>
> "Ironically, if you read the tea leaves the way I do, we are moving to a
> biodiversity science without names, where specimens will be the unit of
> choice, and taxa will be computational inferences, not vague assertions
> supported by a citation at best. But that's another story..."
>
> Working taxonomists on this list please note: no point in spluttering and
> looking aghast at the phrase 'vague assertions', or picturing a lab where
> you acquire and feed lots of data into an inference machine that gives you
> the same answer you eyeballed in a fraction of the time, but without a name.
> The man has admitted he not only has a tea habit, but is also into
> divination. A lost cause.
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:52 +0100
> From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <002B295E-38E7-4FC2-B8A5-624A51CB31D2 at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> "The man has admitted he not only has a tea habit, but is also into
> divination. A lost cause."
>
> LOL
>
> OK, a bit of hyperbole on my part. The kind of thing I had in mind was a
> biologist saying "I made these observations on species x (citing paper on
> that species)" with no other evidence (e.g., a specimen, a sequence, a
> determination by a taxonomist). If I have something more concrete (e.g., a
> voucher) then, for example, I could say "I've sequenced this specimen and
> it's not that species at all", or "a specialist in the group has
> subsequently published on that specimen and it's a different species."
> Plenty of scope for a taxonomist to eyeball the specimen and say "that's
> obviously Aus xus".
>
> I regard taxonomic names as essentially tags on sets of things (e.g.,
> specimens, observations), and given the rate at which observations are being
> generated we will have lots of data not attached not to a name but to a
> specimen. Thats where I was going with this.
>
> I wasn't dismissing what taxonomists do as merely issuing "vague
> assertions." I spent a couple of years as an undergraduate and Masters
> student obsessing over whether New Zealand had just one species of peacrab,
> or whether the populations found in horse mussels were a second, new
> species. Allozyme electrophoresis, morphometrics, larval development,
> plankton sampling, comparative parasitology, type specimens from Paris -
> yep, two species. I get that this requires work.
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
> On 19 Jun 2012, at 09:57, Bob Mesibov wrote:
>
>> Rod Page wrote:
>>
>> "Ironically, if you read the tea leaves the way I do, we are moving to a
>> biodiversity science without names, where specimens will be the unit of
>> choice, and taxa will be computational inferences, not vague assertions
>> supported by a citation at best. But that's another story..."
>>
>> Working taxonomists on this list please note: no point in spluttering and
>> looking aghast at the phrase 'vague assertions', or picturing a lab where
>> you acquire and feed lots of data into an inference machine that gives you
>> the same answer you eyeballed in a fraction of the time, but without a
>> name. The man has admitted he not only has a tea habit, but is also into
>> divination. A lost cause.
>> --
>> Dr Robert Mesibov
>> Honorary Research Associate
>> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
>> School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
>> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
>> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
>> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> Skype: rdmpage
> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:41:53 +1000
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <20120619194153.0666bd0c.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Rod Page wrote:
>
> "I regard taxonomic names as essentially tags on sets of things (e.g.,
> specimens, observations), and given the rate at which observations are being
> generated we will have lots of data not attached not to a name but to a
> specimen. Thats where I was going with this."
>
> I see that happening now, and I don't think it's a problem unless the
> observation-generators want to go way beyond their results. If I do a
> plankton sweep, mush the catch and get a spectrum of (say) 28s, I might be
> able to say something intelligent about how that plankton sweep differed
> from another in some other place. But not a lot. And if I said something
> like 'dominated by chaetognaths' based on 28s, I'd better have done
> whole-animal counts on at least a subsample of the sweep. The first claim
> would be based on inference, while the second route takes me to the facts.
>
> Same with blind barcoding in a tropical forest. 'I caught a something and
> the libraries say it was a fly closely related to X but in fact a new
> species.' Repeat that with another specimen, and repeat that, and repeat
> that. What have you learned?
>
> The observations you see being generated which aren't attached to names have
> very limited usefulness. Hand them over to taxonomists, together with the
> vouchers, and we'll tell you more, often a lot more, because taxonomists are
> usually taxon specialists who know a great deal about the taxon. We aren't
> replaceable.
>
> And please go easy on the hyperbole.
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <1340108497.92080.YahooMailNeo at web141003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The original combination [with author and year] has been given in some
> general or faunistic works, presumably because it serves as a unique species
> identifier, e.g. Cramp et al. (1977-1994) The Birds of the Western
> Palearctic. Apart from its cumbersomeness there seems no reason why a string
> like Drosophila_melanogaster_Meigen_1830 cannot serve this purpose,
> irrespective of the current generic assignment and scientific name of the
> taxon.
>
> Priyantha
>
>
> D. P. Wijesinghe
> dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:53:39 +0200
> From: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: "'TAXACOM'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <E37D9A2FE7BF447282BFE49507609613 at polyphylla>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:35 AM
>
> It's the "norm" that would be new.....
>
> And no, it wasn't databases that have "discontinued" the practice; it's the
> taxonomists (and other biologists) who have in their publications. The
> push
> to re-establish this practice is largely coming from the "databases".
>
> ***
> Yes, I suppose there is indeed a brand of taxonomists that believe
> that any taxon can have only one True, Self-Evident circumscription
> ...
>
> Still, the practice is widespread; it is just not very prominent or
> explicit, often a line or two in the introductory part of a book is
> sufficient.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:24:09 +0000
> From: Andre van Proosdij <andrevanproosdij at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Taxacom] ID requested Asteraceae Curacao
> To: Taxacom mailing list <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <SNT130-W163D6A8CFD60177DBB7FB8DCFF0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> For the past few months we have tried to identify this Asteraceae from
> Cura?ao. So far, without any luck. As the new flora for this area is about
> to go to print, I kindly ask your help in identifying the specimen.
>
> The plants grow about 1 m tall, leaves are opposite in the lower part, but
> alternate in the upper parts. Flower heads approx. 1,5 cm in diameter; ray
> flowers 5-7, yellow; tube flowers 15-25, yellow; fruits each with 1 blunt
> tooth.
>
> The online scan of the herbarium voucher can be found here:
> http://vstbol.leidenuniv.nl/nhn/search?principalcollector=bos%2c+a.+van+den&exactmatch=true&view=images
> (loading might take a few seconds longer depending on your browser)
>
> If needed, I can send high res pictures of the flower head and the seeds,
> but I dont want to jam everyones mailbox.
>
> Looking foward to read your thoughts about the identity!
>
> Best,
>
>
> Andr?
>
>
>
> Andr? van Proosdij
> T: +31 6 21842610
> E: andrevanproosdij at hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:39:42 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Julie Palakovich Carr" <jpalakovichcarr at aibs.org>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Calling All Biologists: Showcase Science to
> Policymakers
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <71a7c35a-dd06-4a88-83ba-17128436805c at tamago.aibs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
>
> This August, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) will
> coordinate the 4th Annual Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits
> event. This national initiative encourages members of the science community
> to meet with their elected officials. Unlike other efforts to educate
> members of Congress about the importance of scientific research and
> education programs, this event occurs across the country ? not in
> Washington, DC.
>
> As part of Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits , scientists
> and representatives of research facilities will meet with their members of
> Congress to describe how science is conducted and why a sustained investment
> in research and education programs must be a national priority.
> Participating scientists will meet with their elected officials at a
> district office or may invite them to visit a research laboratory, field
> site, or natural history collection.
>
> AIBS Public Policy Office staff will provide background materials and a
> webinar training program to prepare individuals for their meetings.
> Participants will receive information about federal funding for biological
> and environmental research, tools for improving their communication skills,
> and tips for conducting a successful meeting with an elected official.
> Participating scientists will receive guidance and some assistance with
> scheduling meetings.
>
> Participation is free, but registration will close on July 15, 2012. For
> more information and to register, visit
> http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/congressional_district_visits.html .
>
> A Special Thanks to Our Event Sponsors
>
> American Institute of Biological Sciences
> Long-Term Ecological Research Network
> Museum of Comparative Zoology--Harvard University
> Natural Science Collections Alliance
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Julie Palakovich Carr
> Senior Public Policy Associate
> American Institute of Biological Sciences
> 1444 I Street, NW Suite 200
> Washington, DC 20005
> 202-568-8117
> www.aibs.org
>
> "This message is confidential and should only be read by its intended
> recipients. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> and delete all copies."
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: D?bora Clivati <deboraclivati at yahoo.com.br>
> Subject: [Taxacom] (no subject)
> To: marciomedeiros_ind_br at hotmail.com, jubordin at terra.com.br,
> cmunhae at yahoo.com.br, anaclaudiaforodrigues at yahoo.com.br,
> ksoltis23 at gmail.com, eventos at saocamilo-sp.br, vmirandum at gmail.com,
> gasparottobr at yahoo.com, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID:
> <1340120925.4514.YahooMailNeo at web125805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> http://www.hibarrie.ca/blog/wp-content/themes/dailydiary/googles.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:56:14 -0700
> From: Nico Franz <nico.franz at asu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
> moves genus?
> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CALZMeknRhvS=UyKzVrCcqkPtKFUNk3fx=7dGfNgVwjzWS=Y5Cg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Agreed, Rich. It's a matter not just of diagnosing the problem, but also
> the solution. Best, Nico
>
> " The issues we?re tackling today with Linnaean names are not really rooted
> in the naming process per
> se. I think that proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature correctly
> sensed that there was a problem, but got the diagnosis mostly wrong.
> The real issues arise through a combination of (1) how the naming of
> taxa is legally regulated (through the Codes, etc.), (2) how these rules
> are implemented and supplemented with additional information,
> and (3) how these two processes interact over time. Many users who
> are unsatisfied with ?the system? primarily feel that there is a lot of
> baggage in taxonomy. It?s difficult to impossible to sort through that
> baggage, leading to linguistic imprecision or even paralysis in certain
> taxonomic groups. These users have a point, though the problem is
> more likely rooted in a history of inadequate systematic inferences and
> poor linguistic implementation than nomenclatural rules. [...]
>
> So while we shouldn?t abandon the ground rules and can?t seem to
> escape the costly strategy of gradual increments, I think there?s plenty
> of room for strengthening the semantic ties among multiple succeeding
> classifications. If systematists can?t guarantee stability in meaning then
> we should at least offer more transparency. As experts we can make
> explicit our underlying assumptions, new insights, and differences
> with former systems on a much more regular basis."
>
> http://franz.lab.asu.edu/publications/LetterLinnaeus.pdf
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Richard Pyle
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>wrote:
>
>> There is another way to frame this:
>>
>> 1) Names assigned to a single type specimen, and the conceptual scope of
>> the
>> taxon implied by usage of the name left to subjective debate;
>>
>> 2) Names assigned to an objectively defined taxon (clade), but where
>> parent
>> and child can reverse roles.
>>
>> #1 is Linnean Nomenclature(ICZN, ICNafp, bacteriological Code); # 2 is
>> essentially Phylocode.
>>
>> After two and a half centuries of mostly successful implementation, why
>> would we try to re-define how Linnean names work? Why not just adopt a
>> system designed to do what you want it to do? Phylocode have too much
>> baggage? OK, then define something new.
>>
>> The real elephant in the room is the one that Paul Kirk articulated:
>> i.e.,
>> that the problems related to species epithets changing combinations with
>> different genera are downright trivial (and actually almost tractable --
>> watch this space) compared with the wholly intractable problem of
>> divining
>> implied taxon concepts from scientific names (with or without basionym
>> authorships, with or without year, with or without combination
>> authorships).
>>
>> If you want to propose a new "norm" in how taxonomists (and other
>> biologists) cite scientific names, don't piddle around with the genus
>> combination issue. Just get people to add a "sensu [Author+year]" to
>> their
>> first-use of scientific names, so we can more readily nail down the usage
>> of
>> the name to a (one would hope!) well-defined taxon concept.
>>
>> While such a proposal would be far less provocative (and, hence, much
>> less
>> fun); it would certainly be far more *USEFUL* -- and also far more easy
>> to
>> implement (i.e., much less disruptive to historical practice).
>>
>> Aloha,
>> Rich
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
>> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:38 PM
>> > To: TAXACOM
>> > Cc: Nico Franz
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Does the species name have to change when it
>> > moves genus?
>> >
>> > Nico has put the issue quite elegantly:
>> >
>> > "The inference gains that come with these names/causal properties
>> > associations (seem to have, historically) outweigh(ed) the costs of
>> tracking
>> > changes."
>> >
>> > It seems to me we have two alternative ways of naming things. Once
>> > we've
>> > coined a name, either:
>> >
>> > 1. names don't change when notions of relationship change, hence we
>> > can't
>> > (necessarily) infer relationships from name, or
>> >
>> > 2. names change when notions of relationship change, hence we can infer
>> > relationships from names
>> >
>> > Option 1 means names are stable (great for information retrieval) but
>> don't
>> > tell you much about relationships (indeed, may be positively misleading
>> if
>> > read literally).
>> >
>> > Option 2 means names are (usually) informative about relationships at
>> some
>> > level, but are liable to change at any time.
>> >
>> > Option 1 means we can't use names to convey relationship, so we need
>> > some other way to do this (e.g., phylogenetic trees)
>> >
>> > Option 2 means we can't retrieve all we know about a taxon by searching
>> on
>> > a single name, so we need a way to track all name changes over time
>> (e.g.,
>> a
>> > global database of synonyms).
>> >
>> > Taxonomic practise follows option 2, but without a database of
>> > synonyms.
>> > Arguably in the past option 1 would have been difficult to implement
>> given
>> > the varied notion of what "related" might mean. Given that the last few
>> > decades have seen "related" become fairly explicitly defined in terms
>> > of
>> > evolutionary history, might option 1 not be worth reconsidering?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Rod
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > Roderic Page
>> > Professor of Taxonomy
>> > Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>> > College
>> of
>> > Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University
>> > of
>> > Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>> >
>> > Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>> > Tel: +44 141 330 4778
>> > Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>> > Skype: rdmpage
>> > AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
>> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
>> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>> > Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>> > Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its
>> contents
>> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use,
>> disclosure
>> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
>> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply
>> mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in
>> this
>> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 75, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list