[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
Dan Lahr
dlahr at ib.usp.br
Fri Oct 4 08:00:04 CDT 2013
Hi John,
Apologies, I did not mean to imply that any of the people here actually
suggest that taxonomy is not a science. But as we are all well aware, it is
a notion that is "out there".
Incidently, I tend think that applying the popperian definition of science
to taxonomy, as you have indicated, is a bit of tryinig to fit a square peg
in a round hole. Popper's definition is too restrictive: exploratory
science is also part of science! HOw would we come to hypothesis if we
dont know what objects can be hypothesizable subjects?
I may be wrong though, these phylosophical issues tend to come back to bite
me.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 ****
>
> ** **
>
> *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> 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
> 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
>
> ****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 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> 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> 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
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Richard Jensen, Professor
>
> Department of Biology
>
> Saint Mary's College
>
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> _______________________________________________
> 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.****
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________
> Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD****
>
> Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology, ****
>
> Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil****
>
> + 55 (11) 3091 0948****
>
--
___________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD
Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology,
Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
+ 55 (11) 3091 0948
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list