[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
Chris Thompson
xelaalex at cox.net
Thu Oct 3 05:59:09 CDT 2013
There is NO scientific information to be derived from higher classifications
as there are NO scientific principles / standards underlying our current
classifications.
Willi Hennig years ago tried to suggest a standard (age of origin) on which
to base rank within a classification. BUT he was ignored by all.
So, like Darwin once said of the species, a higher category / group is
merely what a specialist decides.
So, for example, in Diptera, we now recognize a family which is a clade of
some 10 thousand species and of some 200 million years old (Limoniidae) and
another family of less than a dozen species and probably less than 5 million
years old (Inbiomyiidae).
And that last family illustrates a new problem that conflicts with real
Science. The journal and author who described / published the NEW family
were focused on IMPACT factors. Yes, your impact factors greatly increase
when you described a NEW FAMILY, etc.
So, if one wants to derived scientific hypotheses from classifications, one
must go back to clades and their age.
Sincerely,
Chris
from home
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Gill
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 8:58 PM
To: Tony Rees
Cc: laith_jawad at hotmail.com ; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [WARNING: A/V UNSCANNABLE]RE: Biodiversity questions
Fish families merely reflect the historical classifications of the group,
rather than anything biological. They differ in relative age and diversity
(both in terms of morphology and species) and are therefore not comparable
with each other, let alone with families outside of fishes. The recent
changes in the familial classification of fishes (erection of new families,
synonymization of existing families) have been largely made to accommodate
hypotheses of relationship (monophyly).
Tony
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Anthony C. Gill
Natural History Curator
A12 Macleay Museum
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia.
Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
Editorial Board, Species and Systematics:
http://www.ucpress.edu/series.php?ser=spsy
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list