[Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon May 4 22:53:59 CDT 2015
@Jason: You (and others) are misattributing to me simplistic meanings which are not mine! This is getting further and further away from the original point, which was that there is no need to cite "species circumscriptions/concepts" across the board because it would create too much redundancy (i.e. too much Aus bus Smith, 1900 sensu Smith 1900). Species of many groups of organisms will never need to get to the stage of your "bin 2". For many (but by no means all) beetle species, for example, all you need is an image of the male genitalia, and that is the end of it. If the species was described without examination of the genitalia, then the name means nothing until the holotype (hopefully a male) is dissected.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/5/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why stability? - Revisited
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 5 May, 2015, 3:22 PM
"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.
_______________________________________________
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