[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sat May 2 13:58:02 CDT 2015 

I'm not entirely sure most of the people following this thread would agree with you on when (or why), exactly, this thread became pointless.  But perhaps we can all agree that it has, by now, certainly become so?

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 3:43 PM
> To: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe; TAXACOM; AlanWeakley
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
> 
> Fried or poached? :)
> 
> Anyway, the "core topic" of the thread kind of became pointless when a
> number of posters refused to admit that many uses of taxonomic names are
> not associated with any well-defined entities that one might call "taxonomic
> concepts" or "circumscriptions". There are many cases where simply examining
> a single specimen is sufficient to be able to recognise the species again (and
> many cases where it isn't).
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 2/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>  To: "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, 1:37 PM
> 
>  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?&lang=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.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list