[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions

Wed Oct 2 19:59:41 CDT 2013

Hi Tony,

       I used to think that families got lumped and split more frequently than species.  However, the trend in the past decade or two seems to have been more splitting at the species level than anything at the family level.  The only exception at the family level would be the lumping of families of angiosperms during the 1990s, which was long overdue (although I think that they overdid it in some cases---i.e., the pendulum swung a little too far and needs some moderational corrections at family and ordinal levels).  In any case, I agree that it is possible to look past all of that "and still see patterns of relative distinctiveness or not."  Especially within the "norms" of a given taxonomic community (such ichthyologists in this case).  

------------------Ken

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Subject: [WARNING: A/V UNSCANNABLE]RE: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions
> From: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> To: bmoc at umich.edu; kinman at hotmail.com
> CC: laith_jawad at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:28:57 +0000
> 
> Very true... families get lumped and split through time (perhaps more frequently than species), one person's family is another's subfamily and vice versa, and different taxonomic groups have different "norms" about the criteria for separation into families... however it may be possible to look past that and still see patterns of relative distinctiveness or not.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> Dr Tony Rees 
> Manager | Divisional Data Centre
> Marine and Atmospheric Research
> CSIRO
> E Tony Rees at csiro.au T +61 3 6232 5318
> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
> www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre
> Manager, OBIS Australia regional Node, http://www.obis.au
> LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-rees/18/770/36
> PLEASE NOTE
> The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry OConnor
> > Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013 9:56 AM
> > To: Ken Kinman
> > Cc: Laith Jawad; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions
> > 
> > And of course, since families, as a ranked category in the Linnaean
> > hierarchy, are totally artificial constructs (even if monophyletic),
> > and
> > don't reflect anything biological other than someone's hypothesis of
> > relationships of the included taxa, these questions are really
> > meaningless.
> > All the best! - Barry
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Hi Laith,
> > >
> > > I suppose it depends in part how big an area one is looking
> > at, and
> > > perhaps also whether it is an area of land (its lakes and rivers) or
> > an
> > > area of ocean. And "what does it mean" questions can be rather
> > nebulous
> > > and difficult to answer. Therefore, I would only offer some
> > > generalizations just to get the ball rolling.
> > >
> > > In general, lots of families with lots of species indicates high
> > > biodiversity, and few families with only one or two species each
> > indicates
> > > low biodiversity. Lots of families with only one or two species each
> > would
> > > still indicate a high biodiversity to me, but obviously not as high
> > as lots
> > > of families with lots of species.
> > >
> > > Few families with lots of species each I might call species
> > rich, but
> > > low biodiversity (but obviously not as low as few families with only
> > one or
> > > two species each). Of course, a specialist in one of those few
> > families
> > > might refer to that high species richness as high biodiversity, but I
> > > wouldn't. As for your third question, I'd have to think about
> > that, but
> > > I would think such ratios would have a more useful meaning in some
> > > contexts, but little meaning in other contexts.
> > >
> > > --------------Ken
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: laith_jawad at hotmail.com
> > > > To: taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:12:29 +1300
> > > > Subject: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi All
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have three questions regarding fish biodiversity I hope I can
> > find
> > > their answer with you.Q1. What does it mean if you have large or
> > small
> > > number of families with only one or wo species in each of them? Q2.
> > What
> > > does it mean if you have large number or small number of families
> > with
> > > large number of species?
> > > > Q3. In some biodiversity studies, people use the ration no. of
> > > species/no. families, no. of genera/no. of families. What does it
> > mean if
> > > the ratio high or low? and when I should say it is high and when it
> > is low?
> > > > Are these changes have something to do with the evolution of the
> > > families in the area?
> > > > Looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.
> > > > RegardsLaith A. JawadAucklandNew Zealand
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > -So many mites, so little time!
> > 
> > Barry M. OConnor
> > Professor & Curator
> > Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Museum of Zoology
> > 
> > University of Michigan phone: 734-763-4354
> > 1109 Geddes Ave. fax: 734-763-4080
> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079 e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.