[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
JF Mate
aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Mon May 4 22:22:36 CDT 2015
"Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about
anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!...."
"Alternatively, when taxonomists name new species, one of the
following circumstances may pertain:
(1) They base the new species on a single specimen, or several
essentially identical specimens;
(2) There is a wide range of variability, in which case they need to
circumscribe a concept.
Option (1) is very common."
"You don't have to consider that at all for many species. Many
original descriptions (even today) are explicitly descriptions of the
holotype."
Stephen
we all operate on different species concepts based on our needs, our
experience of each group and the state of knowledge of that group. I
agree that for the most part biodiversity fits into your first bin but
as more information is acquired (specimens, populations, biological
information, molecular, karyological...) the species delimitation
becomes tighter and they move to bin 2. This often requires splitting
species into entities that superficially look the same but which are
independent of each other
You may see it as a frame of mind or a desire to overcomplicate things
because, for the most part, you only require a typological concept.
This is probably the concept that the general public (as well as many
professional users of taxonomic data) need. But reality tends to be
more complicated and for those who are ultimately interested in the
"natural history" of particular organisms, additional layers of
information are necessary.
Jason
On 5 May 2015 at 00:43, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> @Alan: Except that I don't think it is just a function of less taxonomic attention. Many (but by no means all) invertebrates simply can be reliably recognised by matching them up to one (or a just a very few) reference specimens. If anything, problems arise from too much taxonomic attention, whereby taxonomists have to "invent" species in order for it to look like they are really doing anything worthwhile. Cryptic species are like happiness - you can find them just about anywhere if you are of that frame of mind!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/5/15, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 10:21 AM
>
> I carefully circumscribed that
> statement as being relative to vascular plants in the
> Southeastern United States. Granted: large parts
> of the taxonomic world (like most invertebrate animal
> groups) are more like the a taxonomic desert I described,
> where types stand large as outposts in the bleak
> unwatered and minimally taxonomist-turbed
> concept space.
>
> It's in some ways a good place to be. You see
> something different, you name it. Not so much jostling
> around with inadequately conceptualized OTHER taxa, messy
> old (inadequately typified) names, lumping-splitting
> debates, and the always fun rank (maybe a double meaning
> there) opinions.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:58 PM
> To: Weakley, Alan; Jim Croft
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
>
> > Put another way, the great majority of taxa can only be
> unambiguously
> > circumscribed by something beyond the name (as
> typified) because there
> > are sensu stricto or sense lato interpretations “in
> play”.
>
> No! Maybe in botany. Not for the majority of species taxa
> overall (which are invertebrate animals). For many (but by
> no means all) of these species, a single specimen is enough
> to be able to recognise them (plus some experience in the
> group, so that one pays attention to likely important
> diagnostic characters). My identification here (http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/1438142) is a
> good example. I simply compared two images of different
> specimens, and found them to be conspecific with high
> confidence. I knew nothing of the species concerned.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/5/15, Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
> To: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 9:45 AM
>
> We are obviously in furious
> agreement. :)
>
> It wasn't the 'flag in the sand' that caught my
> attention, but the 'around which a taxon is
> defined' bit. It is usually the other way - a taxon
> is defined and a type is selected, either from
> existing, or newly designated if none exists.
>
> But we do seem to have a slight difference in approach,
> and it may be simply semantic. "a very small
> percentage of taxa are unambiguously
> circumscribed based on their type alone" - I don't
> circumscribe taxa based on types as such. For the
> purposes of taxonomy, the type is just another
> specimen, even if it is the only specimen. When the taxa
> are sorted, then the type becomes important. I
> like to draw very clear distinctions between the
> acts of taxonomy and nomenclature, and between the
> type specimen as a specimen and the type
> specimen as a type. ;)
>
> jim
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Weakley, Alan <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree completely with what you say, Jim, and
> was making the same point > you ae making – so,
> am not sure what you are objecting to in my “flag
> in > the sand” analogy. The flag might be over
> on one extreme edge of the > “taxonspace”
> (as implied by Paul). A type anchors a name but does
> not > circumscribe it (except in the narrowest
> possible sense of the type itself).
> >
> >
> >
> > In very poorly understood groups (with a high
> taxon:systematist ratio) the > types stand large as
> outposts in the bleak unwatered and minimally
> > taxonomist-turbed desert. This seems to be what
> Stephen was describing in > his universe. As
> systematics proceeds, the types are still critical
> to > anchor the application of names, but the
> emphasis shifts to the boundaries > between
> the various flags (types), and which flags are taken
> over by others > and become synonyms of what is
> regarded as a “good”
> taxon (not to sound too
> > militaristic). In the vascular flora of the
> Southeastern United States, > 7200 taxa currently
> recognized, a very small percentage of taxa are
> > unambiguously circumscribed based on their type
> alone. Put another way, > the great majority of
> taxa can only be unambiguously circumscribed by
> > something beyond the name (as typified) because
> there are sensu stricto or > sense lato
> interpretations “in play”. If I write
> “Andropogon virginicus > Linnaeus 1753” on a
> specimen (or a record in a
> database) without sec or
> > sensu, no one tell whether I mean it in the
> narrowest sense, or variously > including 1,
> 3, 7, or 12 other taxa recognized in “lumpier”
> taxonomic > schemes currently or in recent decades
> followed by other credible taxonomic >
> experts.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:36 PM > *To:*
> Weakley, Alan > *Cc:* TAXACOM; Paul van
> Rijckevorsel > > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom]
> Why stability? - Revisited > >
> > > This is not strictly true. The purpose of
> the type is to anchor the name, > as Paul
> describes. It is not to centre, circumscribe or in any
> way define > the taxon. That is a separate process
> that may end up including one or more >
> types, and hence one or more names. At least with
> plants. People may think > they are defining a
> taxon by selecting the 'best'
> possible type to
> > represent their concept, and it is probably a
> wise thing to do, but this is > not what is
> happening according to the Code. They are simply
> anchoring the > name.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > On 05/05/2015 5:20 AM, "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > The type is a flag in space around which the
> circumscription of a taxon > (its concept) is
> defined -- usually in relation to other, "competing"
> taxa.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of
> > Paul van Rijckevorsel
> > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:57 AM
> > To: TAXACOM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? -
> Revisited > > I was a little uneasy why
> Stephen Thorpe's attitude that taxa are defined
> > by types is so alien to me.
> >
> > But it is very straightforward: from the very first
> the 'botanical' Code > has laid down that
> nomenclatural types are not necessarily the most
> typical > or representative element of a taxon
> (that is, holding only the type, it is > not
> possible to predict with any degree of confidence what
> the taxon > exactly looks > like: the type
> is only the type) .
> >
> > For plants there does exist a situation where the
> whole unit is determined > by a reference
> specimen, namely in the ICNCP
> (Cultivated-plant-Code), > resulting in names of
> the type Hydrangea macrophylla 'La France'.
> >
> > The ICNCP deals with a field of considerable
> complexity (and which does > benefit from
> regulation), but taxonomy is not involved.
> >
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> _________________
> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com
> ~ +61-(0)2-62509499 ~ +61 (0)418 675 936 ~ http://about.me/jrc
> _______________________________________________
> 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