[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 85, Issue 8
Gary Anweiler
gganweiler at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 11 02:24:13 CDT 2013
Re Amorphophallus titanum: Interestingly...an Amorphophallus titanum is
apparently also blooming here at the Muttart Conservatory here in Edmonton
Alberta Canada! While winter still reigns outdoors. Google Edmonton &
Amorphophallus to see the details.
Gary Anweiler
l Message-----
From: taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:00 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Taxacom Digest, Vol 85, Issue 8
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: Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus
(Richard Pyle)
2. Correspondence of Henry Willey, early American lichenologist
(Richard Zander)
3. Re: Generic type of large genus belongs in different genus
(Stephen Thorpe)
4. Amorphophallus titanum blooming at MU (Vincent, Michael)
5. pdf request (krogmann, lars)
6. >(][[[[[[[[[[[[[[> Graduate student opportunity in systematic
entomology & bioluminescence - Virginia Tech (Paul Marek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:14:17 -1000
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in
different genus
To: "'Roderic Page'" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>, "'TAXACOM'"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <005901ce3545$aba38900$02ea9b00$@bishopmuseum.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I'll take a moment to address something raised by Rod:
> The effects would be lessened if we either:
[...]
> (b) Had a complete database of synonyms that we could use to expand our
> queries
Late last month we hosted a gathering of developers from BHL, GNA, IPNI, and
Index Fungorum and spent a week focused on figuring out how best to
integrate some of the datasets we already have access to. There were many
good ideas and several new services (currently in prototype form) emerging
from that meeting, as well as a major focus on cross-linking content from
the different resources.
As to Rod's point "b", we are obviously a long way off from that "complete
database of synonyms" right now. However, one of the things we accomplished
at last month's meeting was a step in the right direction. Specifically,
one of the things we did was to define a better way to leverage two distinct
resources: The Global Names Index (GNI; http://gni.globalnames.org/), which
contains 17M text-string scientific names; and the Global Names Usage Bank
(GNUB), which currently contains about a half-million Taxon Name Usage
instances with cross-links to literature (and which is the database behind
ZooBank). By more tightly integrating these two GNA components, we'll be
able to seed GNI with "clean" name-strings and associated persistent,
actionable GNUB identifiers. In doing so, the existing parsing and lexical
matching algorithms already in GNI will be supplemented via GNUB content to
include both heterotypic synonym cross-matching (e.g., matching "Aus bus" to
"Xus bus"); and homotypic synonym cross-linking (e.g., knowing that "Aus
bus" has been regarded as a synonym of "Aus xus").
For example, a search in GNI for "Pomatomus saltatrix" currently yields 11
lexical variants
(http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings?search_term=Pomatomus+saltatrix&commit=Search).
We can now link those 11 variants to the corresponding GNUB Protonym UUID
(FFF7160A-372D-40E9-9611-23AF5D9EAC4C; which you can see in ZooBank as
http://zoobank.org/FFF7160A-372D-40E9-9611-23AF5D9EAC4C). That, by itself,
is sort of cool -- but only a little bit. What's *really* cool is that we
also built a service that allows that Protonym UUID to be passed in to GNUB,
and the following list be returned:
Gasterosteus saltatrix Linnaeus, 1766
Ga?tero?teus Sallatrix Linnaeus, 1766
Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766)
Pomatomus saltator (Linnaeus, 1766)
Lopharis mediterraneus Rafinesque, 1810
Pomatomus mediterraneus (Rafinesque, 1810)
Pomatomus pallasii (Eichwald, 1831)
Sypterus pallasii Eichwald, 1831
Pomatomus conidens (Castelnau, 1861)
Temnodon conidens Castelnau, 1861
Gonenion serra Rafinesque, 1810
Pomatomus serra (Rafinesque, 1810)
Pomatomus tubulus (Saville-Kent, 1893)
Temnodon tubulus Saville-Kent, 1893
Pomatomus nalnal (Rochebrune, 1880)
Sparactodon nalnal Rochebrune, 1880
Pomatomus pedica Whitley, 1931
Anthias lophar (Forssk?l, 1775)
Perca lophar Forssk?l, 1775
Pomatomus lophar (Forssk?l, 1775)
Cheilodipterus heptacanthus Lac?p?de, 1801
Pomatomus heptacanthus (Lac?p?de, 1801)
Pomatomus skib Lac?p?de, 1802
Pomatomus sypterus (Pallas, 1814)
Scomber sypterus Pallas, 1814
Chromis epicurorum Gronow in Gray, 1854
Pomatomus epicurorum (Gronow in Gray, 1854)
(Besides these "clean" text string names, there is also a host of other
metadata included with the service response, such as GNUB Protonym UUIDs for
each element of each name.)
The first item in that list is the Protonym itself (i.e., the original
combination and orthography, sort of like the basionym). The second item in
the list is an example of a lexical variant (i.e., the same genus + species
combination, but an alternate spelling). The third and fourth items in the
list are (respectively), a homotypic synonym (same species, different
genus), and a spelling variant of the same homotypic synonym. The remaining
items in the list are all names that have been regarded as heterotypic
synonyms of that species (and their lexical and homotypic variants). Had
there been any treatments that regarded saltatrix as a heterotypic synonym
of another species, those other species would have been included as well.
So, once we get this new set of services implemented through GNA (GNI+GNUB),
you will be able to start with any of the 11 text-string names already
indexed in GNI (as well as any of the 11 text-string variants of Pomatomus
saltator, or the four variants of Gasterosteus saltatrix, or any variants of
any of the heterotypic synonyms), and get an expanded list of other names
(i.e., the list above) that the organism you're searching for might have
been called at one time or another in history.
Another thing we can include in the response to that service is metrics
about how often and when the various names (lexical variants, homotypic
synonyms and heterortypic synonyms) have been used throughout history.
Now, as cool as this is, it's obviously limited by the content we have in
GNUB/ZooBank (as I said, about a half-million name-usages anchored to about
120,000 protonyms). But we also made very good progress on two other fronts
at last month's meeting:
2) Cross-linking the GNI names services to the 107M+ names already known to
appear on BHL pages; and
3) Cross-linking literature records in BHL (Books, Journals, Articles) to
corresponding records in GNUB/ZooBank.
Each of these three things is, by itself, an important step forward. But
what's really exciting is what we can do with all three of them together.
Essentially, this triangle of services (BHL-GNI-GNUB) will allow us to
discover and index literally tens of millions of Taxon Name Usage instances
from the BHL OCR text. Among these tens of millions of TNUs will be
millions of protonyms. Because the systems can cross-reference each other,
the process to verify and clean up these name-usages will be accelerative.
The upshot is that we will, in principle, be able to provide the service
described above (expanding searches to include a wide spectrum of name
variants and synonyms) to a great many more taxa.
To make it work, of course, there needs to be high-quality nomenclature
underpinning the entire system. ZooBank, in cooperation with a variety of
zoological nomenclators, is already taking steps towards this for the
zoological names. Part of last month's meeting was also to explore ways
that IPNI, Tropicos, and Index Fungorum could be likewise integrated into
this part of the GNA infrastructure. Once that gets sorted out, it would be
great to include bacterial and viral names as well.
So, no....we do not yet have "a complete database of synonyms that we could
use to expand our queries". However, we do now have the infrastructure in
place to build it.
And if I were inclined to make wagers, I'd bet that we'll have it built long
before we persuade the broader taxonomic community to lock in "current"
genus+species combinations and keep those stable going forward.
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Dive Safety Officer
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:32:22 -0500
From: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
Subject: [Taxacom] Correspondence of Henry Willey, early American
lichenologist
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<9A35DFA286873646822889D0AC3CBF8DE710B1 at MBGMail01.mobot.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
George W. Clinton of Buffalo NY kept much of his correspondence with
mid-1800's botanists. The letters of Henry Willey to Clinton in the
1870's are now transcribed and online in an annotated Web page by P. M.
Eckel:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/hist/CorrAuth/WilleyClinton/1_W
illeyClinton.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/cpqmd3z
More letters of mid-1800's botanists are at:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/5Hist.htm
_________________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/> and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm>
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm>
UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in
different genus
To: David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<1365540396.84452.YahooMailNeo at web161903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Yes, David makes a good point. IT is "pissing in the wind" to attempt to
catch all the uses of a name within a publication. It is pointless, because
context plays such a big role, and there is a danger of a search swamping
you with irrelevant multiple uses of a name that you don't need to know
about. So, I go back to my previous suggestion that every publication should
mention the original combination of every species it mentions once, then
computers can pick it up as a publication relevant to that nominal species.
This is all we need, and actually it is pretty standard in the taxonomic
literature...
?
Stephen
From: David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
To:
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different
genus
Actually, computers ought to be able to spot the mention of Drosophila
melanogaster as an original combination in the text and tag the article as
containing the taxon of interest.? Name recognition by Google and BHL is
far from perfect, so you need to read through any tagged publication
yourself to actually catch all the uses of a name.? (For example, BHL is
rather better at spotting names in the index than in text with random old
fonts.)? A large proportion of the references will be to "D. melanogaster",
so there has to be search flexibility in any case.
Many taxa hava a much more complex nomenclatural history than the two
genera in the case of S. melanogaster.? Higher categories (family, etc.)
tend to be more stable, so a link to higher-level classification would
provide a useful way to check.? A search for any reference to melanogaster
in references dealing with vinegar flies would do better than a search
specifically for Drosophila melanogaster, while turning up fewer unrelated
black-tummied species.? Of course, that requires actual accurate
recognition of information about higher taxa in a paper, not a blind
assignment of name hits to the supposed higher category.? Homonyms and
erroneous hits are too common for that to be helpful; indeed, the whole
point of adding a search for indications of higher taxa would be to have it
independent of the genus and species recognition, so that they serve as
checks on each other.
More generally, I favor of making the computers do more work and people do
less work in figuring out what names mean.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> My perspective is motivated mainly by simply trying to find information.
> If I search an archive like BHL, which spans centuries of literature up to
> the present day, finding information about a taxon is greatly complicated
> if the name keeps changing. This is a well known problem. The effects
> would
> be lessened if we either:
>
> (a) Stopped creating new combinations to reflect a favoured classification
>
> (b) Had a complete database of synonyms that we could use to expand our
> queries
>
> Either solution would work, but we've done neither, hence we have a mess.
>
> I'm not trying to "ban" Sophophora melanogaster, I'm just questioning why
> we want to change the name. OK, I understand why (we want names to reflect
> relationships) I just question the cost of this (it complicates finding
> information) versus the perceived benefits. A phylogeny is a much more
> informative summary of the relationships of this fly than its binomial
> name, and changing the name severs the connection with the bulk of the
> data
> we've accumulated about this insect. Sure, some people may know that
> Sophophora melanogaster and Drosophila melanogaster, but for the vast
> majority of species most people (or, more importantly, computers) won't
> know that two names refer to the same thing.
>
> > So, ideally, any publication which uses the combination Sophophora
> melanogaster just needs to state once at the beginning that it is the same
> species as was originally described as Drosophila melanogaster by Meigen
> in
> 1830
>
> Seriously? This is how you want to tackle the problem? How do you envisage
> something like Google or BHL making use of this?
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
> On 8 Apr 2013, at 23:13, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
> > Actually, all this is confusing several distinct issues. We have a
> half-baked notion that a species has a "current name", possibly different
> from its original combination, and that this "current name" should act as
> a
> unique identifier for the species! Rubbish! And all this has nothing to do
> with "instability", which is more about synonymy, i.e. a change in the
> specific epithet, not about changes in combination. Original combinations
> are objective unique identifiers for species, with the caveat that in
> cases
> of homonymy, the original combination is objectively replaced by that of
> the first valid replacement name. "Current names" are subjective
> hypotheses
> of relationships ... like it or not! There simply is no problem in the
> case, for example, of Drosophila melanogaster, as long as the specific
> epithet stays as 'melanogaster', and as long as it is clear that we are
> talking about the same species as was originally described as Drosophila
> melanogaster by Meigen in 1830. So, ideally, any publication which uses
> the
> combination Sophophora melanogaster just needs to state once at the
> beginning that it is the same species as was originally described as
> Drosophila melanogaster by Meigen in 1830. But for some reason, Rod wants
> to ban the use of Sophophora melanogaster, and stick forever with JUST
> Drosophila melanogaster! But why? I can see no reason for such a position.
> Similarly, Kim seems to see a problem here, and seems to think that if
> people start using Sophophora melanogaster, then the link will be lost to
> the huge pile of past literature dealing nominally with Drosophila
> melanogaster, as if we won't know that they are the same species! This
> also
> seems very strange to me!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > From: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
> > To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, 8 April 2013 7:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Generic type of large genus belongs in different
> genus
> >
> > It seems to me that this discussion makes a mockery of notion that
> nomenclature is separate from taxonomy. Once you have bionomial names, and
> insist on those names being "meaningful" (i.e., the genus name tells you
> something about relationships) then you have a recipe for instability.
> >
> > The ICZN decision regarding Drosophila melanogaster was the right one in
> my opinion, but for the wrong reasons. Why does it matter if Drosophila
> melanogaster sits in a phylogeny next to some Sophophora species? What
> matters is its relationships, not what we call it.
> >
> > Names are a poor way to convey relationships, why burden them with this
> role? If you have no other way of conveying relationships then perhaps the
> trade off between stability and meaning seems worthwhile. But we do have
> powerful ways of visualising relationships, so it seems perverse to
> continue to change names (thus annoying people who use them) in the hope
> that names remain "meaningful". We don't expect the name of an organism to
> be meaningful ("maximus" might not be the biggest species, "africanus"
> might come from Australia), can we not let this last scrap of meaning go
> and save us (and the wider community) some grief?
> >
> > 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
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> > Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
> > Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> > Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page
> > Citations: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> > ORCID id: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive 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
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page
> Citations: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> ORCID id: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive 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
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
--
Dr. David Campbell
Assistant Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive 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
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 19:51:01 -0400
From: "Vincent, Michael" <vincenma at miamioh.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] Amorphophallus titanum blooming at MU
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<CAOJGDeUqc448CtD1khA0zNAPCTmf0HeRXNcCQaaXKLhG1w1xhQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In case anyone is interested, an Amorphophallus titanum is blooming today
at the Elk Greenhouse, Botany Department, Miami University. Here is the
link to the live feed:
http://www.cas.miamioh.edu/botany/titan/
Mike Vincent
--
Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator
Willard Sherman Turrell Herbarium (MU)
Department of Botany
Miami University - MSC 1052
100 Bishop Circle, Rm. 79 Upham Hall
Oxford, Ohio 45056-1879 USA
Tel: 513-529-2755; FAX: 513-529-4243
Email: vincenma at miamioh.edu
http://herbarium.muohio.edu/herbariummu/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:55:45 +0200
From: "krogmann, lars" <lars.krogmann at smns-bw.de>
Subject: [Taxacom] pdf request
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<CAO8j5ttphXRQNfSZpoXC2x-jJGAnjKktfoc_=Vh5ZXCpqBeBCQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear all,
Does anyone have access to a pdf of the following publication:
Fahlander K (1938) Beitr?ge zur Anatomie und systematischen Einteilung
der Chilopoden. Zoologiska Bidrag fr?n Uppsala 17:1-148.
Thanks for your help and best wishes,
Lars
--
Dr. Lars Krogmann
Staatliches Museum f?r Naturkunde
Entomologie
Rosenstein 1
D-70191 Stuttgart
Germany
E-mail: lars.krogmann at smns-bw.de
Tel.: 0049-(0)711-8936-219
Fax: 0049-(0)711-8936-100
Web: http://www.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/forschung/entomology/krogmann
Editor of Insect Systematics & Evolution
http://www.brill.nl/ise
Manuscript submission
http://www.editorialmanager.com/ise/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:30:27 -0700
From: Paul Marek <brachoria at gmail.com>
Subject: [Taxacom] >(][[[[[[[[[[[[[[> Graduate student opportunity in
systematic entomology & bioluminescence - Virginia Tech
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <7E19D12B-2E20-4B1C-8A31-C1CA8CFE84E7 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Graduate positions in systematic entomology at Virginia Tech::
Join Dr. Paul Marek's laboratory in the Department of Entomology at Virginia
Tech studying bioluminescence, mimicry, and the discovery & description of
planetary biodiversity.
Background - In the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, bioluminescent
millipedes scatter upon the forest floor and on a moonless night "resemble a
starry sky". The most remarkable feature of these millipedes is their
ability to glow at a wavelength of 495 nm. This is only one of two known
instances of bioluminescence in the entire millipede class Diplopoda.
Bioluminescence in millipedes is restricted to only eight species of the
genus Motyxia, which are endemic to a very small area in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, and Paraspirobolus lucifugus (a distantly related species in the
order Spirobolida) from islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Our current research program aims to discover the evolutionary circumstances
under which this unique adaptive innovation arose. The first part of the
project consists of molecular phylogenetics as a foundation to address
monophyly of the genus, and as a basis for new species descriptions. Did
luminescence evolve multiple times, and under what circumstances? The second
part of the project is a field test of luminescence and whether it functions
as a nocturnal warning signal. Currently, we are using next generation
transcriptome sequencing to understand the DNA-level differences between
luminescent and closely related non-luminescent taxa.
www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00887-6
blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/09/26/if-you-see-a-glowing-millipede-best-not-to-bite-it/
For the spring semester 2014, we seek graduate students (PhD and masters) to
collaborate in National Science Foundation supported research investigating
the evolution of bioluminescence in millipedes. Opportunities are also
available in taxonomy/systematics of millipedes and insects including, but
not limited to, local Appalachian species. International applicants are
welcomed. Laboratory facilities are available for molecular systematics,
spectral measurements of bioluminescence, and morphology-based taxonomy. A
vast insect collection is also available.
Please send a curriculum vitae and letter of interest to Dr. Paul Marek,
paulemarek at gmail.com, by May 7, 2013. Visit our website for more details,
www.apheloria.org and www.ento.vt.edu. Guidelines for applying to Virginia
Tech's Graduate School can be found at:
graduateschool.vt.edu/admissions/applying/.
Blacksburg, VA was named by Outside magazine as one of the top 10 places to
live in the country, and offers an abundance of outdoor activities including
mountain biking, caving, rafting, and hiking -
www.vt.edu/where_we_are/blacksburg.
http://apheloria.org/Paul_Marek/Students.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:
Visit: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or use a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your-search-terms-here
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 85, Issue 8
**************************************
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list