[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman
viper007 at live.com.au
Thu Oct 3 07:52:25 CDT 2013
Gill I must in the main part disagree with your comment or
at least the sentiment:
“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.”
Maybe no one at the time came out
and said “yes great idea”, but this is exactly what is happening in science
across many disciplines. For example
note the recently widely accepted merging of several sea snake genera into
Hydrophis on the basis of divergence times (recent) and the corresponding
splitting of other snake genera (e.g. Micrurus, Dendrelaphis) on the same basis
– long and deep divergences.
As yet, there is no gold standard
for division of clades into genera, families and the like based on dates of
divergence, but you can be assured that most molecular biologists and
taxonomists worth their salt would have their own guidelines in place as to
where they draw the line and the majority do seem to be consistent.
When I did an audit of the entire
serpent fauna of the world in recent years, the majority were classified fairly
consistently and with divergence dates for classification levels roughly in
line with one another. When old
divergences were missed and not divided as they should have been, I fixed them
and yet in percentage terms it was only a small number of the total.
Of course petty politics and
personal hatreds will get in the way, as seen with our fellow poster here Wolfgang
Wuster, who runs on the unusual principal of acceptance or rejection of names
for clades (genera etc), not on the basis of any science, but rather who has
authored the proposals, as in those outside his gang are always lampooned as “unscientific”
and rejected.
A case in point being his nearly decade
long call for people NOT to use the name Broghammerus Hoser, 2004, even though
the genus is deeply divergent of all other pythons genera (like about 40
million years worth according to the molecular biologists) and every other
herpetologist worth their salt has used the name since it was logically
proposed.
In other words science can only
progress if people stick to the facts and the rules and the spoilers are put in
their place.
All the best
Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322
0412 777 211
> From: xelaalex at cox.net
> To: gill.anthony at gmail.com; Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:59:09 -0400
> CC: laith_jawad at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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