[Taxacom] We are cataloguing hypotheses & not real things -- I hope everyone appreciates the implications of this. Was Global species lists ....

Philipp Wagner philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de
Sun Sep 1 06:43:45 CDT 2013


Dear Raymond,

mybe I am not correct, but this list was created to 
discuss topics about nomenclature and taxonomy.
Regarding this I would be happy if you could stopp your 
personell fights here in this forum.

Thanks,
Philipp





n Sun, 1 Sep 2013 21:50:03 +1030
  Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Wulf for your insight.
> 
> 
> I might add that when you engage in taxonomic vandalism 
>and
> creationism instead of science, you end up with names 
>for imaginary species that clutter up the
> world with synonyms.
> 
> 
> A good example of three such names for totally imaginary 
>species
> is found here:
> 
> 
> http://www.smuggled.com/scientific-fraud-wulf-schleip.htm
> 
> 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: webmaster at leiopython.de
>> To: Michael.Ohl at mfn-berlin.de; Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za; 
>>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:48:55 +0200
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] We are cataloguing hypotheses & 
>>not real things -- I	hope everyone appreciates the 
>>implications of this. Was	Global species lists ....
>> 
>> Dear Michael, dear list,
>> 
>> yes, nomenclature and taxonomy are two different things. 
>>While nomenclature
>> is simply a tool for taxonomy, both canot exist without 
>>each other. What use
>> would nomenclature do without anything to name? And what 
>>chaos would we have
>> if we differntiate or classify things without making 
>>them clearly
>> identifiable (e.g., by names or numbers)? 
>> 
>> So, in nomenclature we have names, but these names are 
>>usually represented
>> by a typ species (generic) or specimen (specific and 
>>subspecific). There is
>> a concept (maybe a hypothesis) behind each scientific 
>>name. Therefore, we
>> use the name as an alias for 1) a label for the type 
>>specimen itself, 2) for
>> the type specimen as an objective reference with 
>>characters on which the
>> concept/hypothesis usually is based on, and 3) for the 
>>taxon differentiated
>> from others by the concept/hypothesis.
>> 
>> A name, therefore, is more than just a name and a 
>>catalogue is more than a
>> list of names. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Wulf
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] Im Auftrag 
>>von Ohl, Michael
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. August 2013 13:26
>> An: 'Ashley Nicholas'; 'taxacom taxacom'
>> Betreff: Re: [Taxacom] We are cataloguing hypotheses & 
>>not real things -- I
>> hope everyone appreciates the implications of this. Was 
>>Global species lists
>> ....
>> 
>> I disagree. We are cataloging neither hypotheses nor 
>>real things, but
>> linguistic items that may or may not be proper names in 
>>a linguistic sense
>> and that may or may not label hypotheses on the 
>>existence of natural things
>> beyond the human mind. Opinions differ on both. This is 
>>an important
>> difference, which has been repeatedly been discussed as 
>>the difference
>> between nomenclature and taxonomy. Names have no other 
>>function than to
>> label information, and cataloging these linguistic 
>>labels is important in
>> order to optimize access to the underlying information. 
>>The questions of the
>> reality and nature of species, whether they are 
>>biological species,
>> individuals, relations, or even non-existent, are 
>>important, but are not a
>> matter of names as linguistic elements, which denote 
>>concepts. So catalogues
>> are not catalogues of species hypotheses but of names.
>> 
>> Cheers, Michael 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> PD Dr. Michael Ohl
>> Curator // Head of Entomological Collections Museum fuer 
>>Naturkunde
>> Leibniz-Institut fuer Evolutions- und 
>>Biodiversitaetsforschung Invalidenstr.
>> 43
>> D-10115 Berlin, Germany
>> Tel: ++49-30-2093-8507
>> Fax: ++49-30-2093-8868
>> 
>> E-Mail: michael.ohl(at)mfn-berlin.de
>> URL: 
>>http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/institution/mitarbeiter/ohl-micha
>> el/
>>  
>> Geschäftsführer der Gesellschaft für Biologische 
>>Systematik (GfBS) Managing
>> Editor Arthropoda von Zoosystematics and Evolution
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] Im Auftrag 
>>von Ashley Nicholas
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. August 2013 12:32
>> An: taxacom taxacom
>> Betreff: [Taxacom] We are cataloguing hypotheses & not 
>>real things -- I hope
>> everyone appreciates the implications of this. Was 
>>Global species lists ....
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I just hope that people doing these digital catalogues 
>>appreciate that all
>> they are doing is cataloguing hypotheses -- in this case 
>>species hypotheses
>> (species are not real entities -- Popper's World 2)? We 
>>measure specimens
>> and populations (Popper's World 1). We extrapolate this 
>>limited data to
>> hypothesise species. If a researcher can claim to have 
>>measured every
>> specimen and population of a species (maybe possible for 
>>species confined to
>> small areas esp. islands [maybe this is why vicariance 
>>is so easily
>> demonstrated in island situation?]). Only then can s/he 
>>claim to have
>> objectified a species. However, even then this will only 
>>hold true for that
>> instance because as the gene pool changes over time s/he 
>>can no longer claim
>> to have objectified that species. 
>> 
>> These catalogues are catalogues of species hypotheses. 
>>Hypotheses are not
>> the "truth" they are suppositions that remain to be 
>>verified (a shaky
>> premise) or falsified (a better premise). So who is 
>>someone doing a
>> catalogue to say that one species hypothesis is the 
>>correct one -- and
>> include it, while rejecting all others? As an empirical 
>>scientist that makes
>> me feel very uncomfortable.
>> 
>> However, I can see that something needs to be produced 
>>for conservationists
>> etc. to use. I have no answer. Taxonomy was originally 
>>both a science and a
>> service (to societies) and we still need to fulfil this 
>>role. I was called
>> in to identify a plant that had poisoned two young 
>>children recently -- and
>> thanked my orthodox training because I had the skill to 
>>select the one
>> "species" in our province from the other 6500 that also 
>>occur here in order
>> to save their lives. However, the scientist in me also 
>>understands the fact
>> that we cannot have a dictatorial system that selects 
>>some species
>> hypotheses over others; science should not be 
>>dictatorial -- and these
>> catalogues often are.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Ashley  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
>>Dave Roberts
>> Sent: 29 August 2013 15:21
>> To: taxacom taxacom
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] global species lists and taxonomy 
>>( was Re: Draft
>> Checklist ...)
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I fear that the comparatively greater complexity of the 
>>animals will make
>> such an approach a considerable amount of work, or more 
>>bluntly, will be
>> significantly hard.
>> 
>> With the list of names, on which so many people are 
>>labouring without, as
>> Rich says, sufficient coordination, we also need a 
>>classification bank, a
>> simple way to find in how many arrangements a given 
>>taxon has been placed.
>> That was one of the priorities identified in the 
>>Biodiversity Informatics
>> Decadal Vision [1].
>> 
>> The EU's funding programme H2020 is an opportunity to 
>>create a large
>> consortium to do exactly that level of coordination. 
>> The problem, though,
>> is to link it in some way to either job creation or 
>>policy making at an EU
>> scale.  The advantage is that international 
>>collaboration (i.e. outside
>> Europe) is likely to be more tractable in H2020.
>> 
>> Next week's meeting in Rome [2] is a starting point for 
>>that kind of
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Cheers, Dave
>> 
>> [1] Hardisty, Alex, Dave Roberts, and The Biodiversity 
>>Informatics
>> Community. "A Decadal View of Biodiversity Informatics: 
>>Challenges and
>> Priorities." BMC Ecology 13 (2013): 16. 
>>doi:10.1186/1472-6785-13-16.
>> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/13/16
>>  
>> [2] 
>>http://conference.lifewatch.unisalento.it/index.php/EBIC/BIH2013/
>> 
>> --
>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:08, nicky nicolson 
>><nicky.nicolson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Thanks Karen, yes this is what we are working on in 
>>botany and 
>> > mycology - we are using the nomenclators (IPNI and IF) 
>>to provide the 
>> > fundamental units (names and the objective 
>>relationships between them) 
>> > and then supporting multiple overlapping - even 
>>contradictory - 
>> > classifications to be built using these same 
>>fundamental units. We are 
>> > storing enough data on the relationships which form 
>>the taxonomic 
>> > classifications to do the kind of assessments that 
>>Fred suggests - 
>> > e.g. to take into account how recently the hypothesis 
>>was published, 
>> > who published it and where (e.g. was it a regional 
>>treatment or a
>> globally-scoped monograph).
>> > I did quite a general talk about this at the Natural 
>>History Museum in 
>> > London recently, video here:
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynFB6DWCBjc and slides 
>>here: 
>> > 
>>http://www.slideshare.net/nickyn/nicolson-namesbackbonenhm
>> > We've a funded project to rebuild Kew's taxonomic 
>>systems in this 
>> > environment, and we are working on incorporating the 
>>World Checklist 
>> > system at the moment, although our communications 
>>standard is TCS so 
>> > we should be able to import / export data from many 
>>different sources.
>> > cheers,
>> > Nicky
>> > 
>> > PS: I'll be at TDWG along with a few people from the 
>>Kew team if 
>> > anybody is interested in having a closer look.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 29 August 2013 12:18, Karen Cranston 
>><karen.cranston at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> It is not too hard to implement this type of system. 
>>Both IPNI and 
>> >> Open Tree of Life are currently implementing a 
>>relatively new graph 
>> >> database model (database called neo4j) to load and 
>>store multiple 
>> >> hierarchies in the same data structure. Then, you can 
>>traverse the 
>> >> graph (which contains all of the nodes and edges, and 
>>therefore all 
>> >> of the conflict) in various ways in order to 
>>summarize / resolve 
>> >> conflicts / find interesting patterns. You could use 
>>algorithmic and 
>> >> / or human-curated approaches to annotate or resolve 
>>parts of the 
>> >> hierarchy, while still keeping all of the information 
>>from the 
>> >> sources. Visualization libraries like d3 make it easy 
>>to create images or
>> interactive tools to explore the data in the graph.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Erik Rijkers 
>><er at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> On Thu, August 29, 2013 12:31, Fred Schueler wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Maybe we want to take a lesson from the physicists' 
>>ideas of 
>> >>>> infinite parallel universes, and program systems 
>>where all 
>> >>>> published classifications are represented, but with 
>>some sort of 
>> >>>> combined voting or weighting by the recency of 
>>publication, and 
>> >>>> wiki-style comments and discussion, to show users 
>>which 
>> >>>> classifications are more currently approved and 
>>used.
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> hear, hear!
>> >>> 
>> >>> IMHO, this is the only possible way to get usefully 
>>stable global lists.
>> >>> 
>> >>> It amounts to the realisation that the 
>>classification business is 
>> >>> producing opinions (however obnoxious this may sound 
>>to the 
>> >>> taxonomist).
>> >>> 
>> >>> So databases should amass these opinions with plenty 
>>factual detail 
>> >>> but without implicitly endowing any 
>>classification-opinion with the 
>> >>> distinction of being "fact".
>> >>> 
>> >>> It would seem this obvious way of doing taxonomical 
>>databases is not 
>> >>> too hard to implement but I have never seen it done 
>>, or even 
>> >>> acknowledged as necessary.
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Erikjan Rijkers
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr D.McL. Roberts,        Tel: +44 (0)20 7942 5086
>> ViBRANT Project Manager,
>> Dept. Life Sciences,
>> The Natural History Museum,
>> Cromwell Road,
>> London        SW7 5BD
>> Great Britain             Email: dmr at nomencurator dot 
>>org
>> Web page:  http://vbrant.eu
>> Web page:  http://scratchpads.eu
>> Web page:  http://www.editwebrevisions.info/
>> --
>> "You can't just ask customers what they want and then 
>>try and give it to
>> them.  By the time you get it built, they'll want 
>>something new." [Steve
>> Jobs, quoted in The Guardian, Technology Section, 25 
>>June 09].
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> 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. Philipp Wagner

Current Institution:
Department of Biology
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA

Home Institution:
Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig
Sektion Herpetologie
Adenauerallee 160
D-53113 Bonn
Deutschland

+49 228 9122 254

 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list