[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Fri May 1 21:58:04 CDT 2015

Who is suggesting "an increase in complexity across the board"??  This was about best practices, and as eloquently explained by Rich, it tends to be self-correcting in that the practice will be applied where it is actually needed (my phrasing).  

I'll post later about the phrase "a few problem cases"!  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 10:40 PM
To: Weakley, Alan; Dilrukshan Wijesinghe; TAXACOM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

A few problem cases don't justify an increase in complexity across the board. "Sensu" should be used when it is actually needed.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 2/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
 To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Dilrukshan Wijesinghe" <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Saturday, 2 May, 2015, 2:14 PM

 It might be noted that
 most monographs and most floras (apologies to my  non-botanical colleagues for my botanical POV; I'd be  interested to understand how this is the same or different  in zoology) actually do a poor or even terrible (misleading)  job of connecting past usage and circumscriptions to modern  usage and circumscriptions -- in part because of the  convention of being completely focused on types.

 Example.  Quercus prinus L.
 1753.  For 250 years this name has been variously applied  to 2 very different and clearly distinct species (very  different in overall morphology, in habitat, in
 distribution) -- because the minimal type was ambiguous.  WHAT did Linnaeus mean???  This has been fought over and  disagreed about for 254 years but is now resolved by formal  rejection of the name Quercus prinus L.

 The typical monograph or flora has simply  decided the issue by their opinion, and recognized 2
 species:  EITHER

 1.
 Quercus prinus (with montana in synonymy) and Quercus  michauxii, OR  2. Quercus montana and Quercus  prinus (with michauxii in synonymy).
 with no
 usage of sec or sensu, and usually with no explanation of  the issue.  

 This means
 that when one encounters "Quercus prinus Linnaeus"
 in most floras, or on a specimen label or species list, it  can only mean ambiguously "one or the other". 

 But, if one approaches
 things with a "sec" or "sensu" approach,  immensely more clarity can be found and floristic treatments  and specimen IDs based on each can be parsed.  

 Quercus michauxii Nuttall,
 Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak.  Bottomland forests,  especially in fertile soils of upper terraces where flooded  only infrequently and for short periods, upland depression  ponds, sometimes on moist lower slopes.  Apr; Sep-Oct (of  the same year).  NJ south to n. peninsular FL and west to  e. TX and se. OK, north in the interior to s. IL and s.
 IN.  See discussion under Q. montana about the application  of the name Q. prinus Linnaeus.  [= Q. michauxii -- C, F,  FNA, G, GW, K, Mo, RAB, Va, W, WH3; = Q. prinus Linnaeus –  S, name rejected (possibly misapplied, and a source of  confusion)]

 Quercus montana
 Willdenow, Rock Chestnut Oak.  Xeric forests of ridges and  slopes, shale barrens, occasionally in mesic situations  especially where rocky.  Apr; Sep-Nov (of the same year).  Primarily Appalachian but broadly distributed in e. North
 America:  s. ME, NY, MI, s. UN, s. IL, and se. MO (Smith  & Parker 2005) south to c. GA, c. AL, ne. MS (and  LA?).  The proper application of the Linnaean “Q.
 prinus” has been controversial and unclear, having been  debated and variously applied for well over a century.  The  name “Q. prinus” has nomenclatural priority over either  “Q. montana” or “Q. michauxii”, but it is not clear  which species was intended; after centuries of uncertainty,  Whittemore & Nixon (2005) proposed its formal rejection  and the proposal was formally and unanimously accepted  (Brummitt 2007).  [= Q. montana -- FNA, K2, Pa, S, Va, W; =  Q. prinus Linnaeus – C, F, G, K1, RAB, WV, name rejected  (probably misapplied, and a source of confusion)]

 Strangely helpful and actually
 very simple to pay attention not only to monography and  typification and rulings in the code, but to "map"
 the names used by past authors explicitly to clarify usage  over time.

 Alan 

 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Weakley, Alan
 Sent: Friday, May
 01, 2015 9:38 PM
 To: Stephen Thorpe;
 Dilrukshan Wijesinghe; TAXACOM
 Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

 I was just hoping (no "dictating"
 going on) for some focus on a topic of importance -- without  haring off on other topics that have been hashed over  repeatedly on this forum.  The "decline of  monography" and "the evil of data  aggregators" can have and have had their own lengthy  strings (and I and many others I'm sure have their  various and largely sympathetic thoughts on these issues).  But, both are tangentially related to the topic which I (and  a number of others) thought was on the table in this
 string:  sec, sensu, precision in connecting an alleged  identification with a name, "taxonomic concept  mapping" (clear bounding of the "taxonspace"
 around the type specimen 'flag') and ways to go  about best delineating that and communicating it to the  benefit of current and future taxonomists and other users of  taxonomic information.

 In
 my humble opinion (IMHO) having some discipline about  staying "on topic" would make this a more  beneficial forum for all.  But, far from being  "supreme ruler of the cosmos", I am "but an  egg".

 ---Original Message-----
 From:
 Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]

 Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:15 PM
 To: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe; TAXACOM; Weakley,  Alan
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -  Revisited

 @Alan Weakley:
 When you become supreme ruler of the cosmos, THEN you can  dictate what other people can or cannot talk about on  Taxacom...

 --------------------------------------------
 On Sat, 2/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
  To:
 "Dilrukshan Wijesinghe" <dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com>,  "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  Received: Saturday, 2 May, 2015, 11:47 AM

  "Aggregators are
 rubbish".
  "Taxonomists are under
 citation pressure" to split their  work into smaller  articles.

  And I thought
 we were talking about ways to better  communicate best  taxonomy and unambiguous information about  the individual  units (based closely on cited underlying

 literature) to the diversity of taxonomy-users (including
  ourselves) across generations.

  -----Original
 Message-----
  From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
  On Behalf Of Dilrukshan Wijesinghe
  Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:20 PM
  To: TAXACOM
  Subject: Re:
 [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

  Rod wrote:
  "I'm not
 denying that this is valuable, but it frustrates me  that  there is minimal connection to the underlying  literature.
 What I see missing from many checklists, and  aggregators  as well, is the ability to drill down to the  underlying  science."
  That's why aggregators
 are rubbish. The idea that there  should be one (or a few)  sites providing taxonomic  information on all organisms is  ludicrous, yet this seems to  be the "philosophy"
 that drives the "aggregator industry".
  Every day we use specialized sources for  information on a  variety of topics that are of importance  to us. Obviously,  that is not seen as a huge problem; in  fact, that diversity  and specialization is understood to  be necessary aspect of  high-quality information.
  Here are some specialized taxonomic websites  that are vastly  more reliable and useful than any
 aggregator:
  World Spider Catalog
  http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/

  The Goblin Spider Planetary Biodiversity  Inventory http://research.amnh.org/oonopidae/index.php

  Pseudoscorpions of the
 World
  http://museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues-beta/pseudoscorpions

  Jumping spiders (Arachnida:
 Araneae: Salticidae) of the  world http://www.jumping-spiders.com/index.php

  Catalogue of Pholcidae
  http://www.pholcidae.de/

  Orthoptera Species File
 Online
  http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Orthoptera/HomePage.aspx

  Cercopoidea Organised On
 Line
  http://rameau.snv.jussieu.fr/cool/index.php?⟨=en

  Coreoidea Species File
 Online
  http://coreoidea.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Coreoidea/HomePage.aspx

  World List of Marine,
 Freshwater and Terrestrial Isopod  Crustaceans http://www.marinespecies.org/isopoda/

  Global Taxnomic Daabase of
 Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera) http://www.gracillariidae.net/

  Psocodea Species File
 Online
  http://psocodea.speciesfile.org/HomePage/Psocodea/HomePage.aspx

  Cassidinae of the world - an
 interactive manual (Coleoptera:

 Chrysomelidae) http://culex.biol.uni.wroc.pl/cassidae/katalog%20internetowy/index.htm

 Priyantha

  D. P.
 Wijesinghe
  dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com

 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

  Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.