[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

Fri Oct 4 07:27:54 CDT 2013

Hi Dan,

I guess I was hoping not to be taken too seriously - just illustrating that I think that all these sorts of arguments are by and large absolutely pointless.

With regards to what you say about science it really all depends on how you define it. It seems to me that most scientists who like to think they are real scientists define it by saying that real science is proposing a hypothesis and then testing it. If we, as taxonomists, use  this as a definition then we can claim to be more scientists than they are because every day we make several hypotheses as to what a particular taxon might be and then test this (often over and over again). Most physicists, chemists, etc. get to propose one hypothesis every umpteen years and get to test it over umpteen years. Every species/genus/family that I describe or even identify is a hypothesis and I (and others) get to test that hypothesis over and over again.

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids>

From: daniel.lahr at gmail.com [mailto:daniel.lahr at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lahr
Sent: 04 October 2013 13:14
To: Chris Thompson; Stephen Thorpe
Cc: John Noyes; Richard Jensen; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

I never understood the argument that taxonomy is not science. It is about one of the most nonsensical things that are out there.
Is analytical chemistry not a science? Astronomy?

These are all about describing natural objects. I wonder if theoretical physicists are also saying that astronomers are a bunch of stamp collectors...

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net<mailto:xelaalex at cox.net>> wrote:
Thanks, John,

Yes, there are other measures that could be used to base the category RANK
on.

The only question is whether they would be more informative and easy to use.

For example, no one has yet to mention the Ernst Mayr approach. That is,
rank should be based on a measure of ANAGENSIS, not Cladogensis.

That is, as Ken Kinman wants, we (Homo sapiens) could be placed in a
separate phylum (Psychozoa Huxley) or at least a family on the basis of the
greater divergence (supposedly in our intelligence) from all other animals.

Yes, you are right. No one will accept any consistent, scientific standard
for ranking monophyletic units in classification.

So, the bottom line remains that Taxonomy will continue to be seen by others
as not a SCIENCE.

Oh, well ...

Sincerely,

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: John Noyes
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 4:39 AM
To: 'Chris Thompson' ; Richard Jensen
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
Hi Chris,

I completely agree with you.

If not the age of the group, then how about standardising it as a
theoretical average number of generations per species, or some sort of index
of hypothetical generation time, or index of generation time x genetic
plasticity, or generation time x genetic plasticity  + perceived rate of
extinction, or . . . .

My brain hurts.

John

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:jsn at nhm.ac.uk>
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20207%20942%205594>
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20207%20942%205229>

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids>

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
Sent: 03 October 2013 19:04
To: Richard Jensen
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

Sorry, Dick,

Yes, for different questions, we as scientists may use different measures,
etc.

HOWEVER, it the case of your example, age-based ranked groups are also
useful. For CURRENT biodiversity one would declare that family x with 999
surviving species is a highly successful clade, where as family z with only
a single surviving species is NOT.

Real example, horse-shoe crabs versus insects!

Oh, well ...

From: Richard Jensen
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:28 PM
To: Chris Thompson
Cc: muscapaul ; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

Could it be that the apparent discrepancy in biodiversity, as we perceive
it, is that family Z has had just as many speciation events as family X, but
has experienced extremely high rates of extinction?  If so, then knowing the
age tells us nothing about biodiversity - the two clades, one with 999
surviving species, and one with 1 surviving species, could be the same age.

Dick J

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net<mailto:xelaalex at cox.net>> wrote:

  PAUL:

  The scientific question that we begin with was about biodiversity.

  And Hennig said to answer those kinds of questions, then groups based on
  time are the best.

  So, under the Hennig system, one could say that family X which now
contains
  999 species is more biodiversity, has more speciation, etc., than family Z
  which now contains only 1 species. BECAUSE the contents (species) of each
  family represents a clade that has evolved over the SAME time period.

  But as I indicated in my Diptera example, comparison of the number of
  species in Limoniidae versus Inbiomyiidae does not tell you anything about
  biodiversity, speciation, etc. because those groups are not equivalent,
not
  comparable, etc.

  Oh, well ...

  Sincerely,

  Chris

  -----Original Message-----
  From: muscapaul
  Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:27 AM
  To: TAXACOM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

  Just out of interest: If actual age would (should?) be playing a role,
  where do we then account for differences between taxa with highly
divergent
  generation time, like drosophilids with perhaps more than 10 generations
  per year under favourable conditions and panthophthalmids which probably
  take multiple years to develop? And then I am just considering taxa within
  the same order where one might give rise to new taxa on a much shorter
  absolute time scale than the other.

  Paul

  On 3 October 2013 12:59, Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net<mailto:xelaalex at cox.net>> wrote:

  > 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).

  ...
  >
  > So, if one wants to derived scientific hypotheses from classifications,
  > one
  > must go back to clades and their age.
  >
  > Sincerely,
  >
  > Chris
  _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom>  your search terms here

  Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.

--

Richard Jensen, Professor

Department of Biology

Saint Mary's College

Notre Dame, IN 46556
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom>  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.

--
___________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD
Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology,
Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
+ 55 (11) 3091 0948