[Taxacom] large animal genera

Tue May 26 12:45:30 CDT 2015

I interpreted the earlier comment about rank as having no reality as
comparative rank having no reality in the sense that the genus in one group
has no necessary size (in number of species) in relation to the genus in
any other group. In the group I work in (not that I have created any
genera, there are unnamed species for which affinities beyond the species
are unresolved and so a new genus will be created at name the species,
leaving subsequent systematic analysis to confirm or reject the generic
designation.

Some on this list may know of one example of where things got pretty silly
when there was a push to place chimps in to the genus Homo in order to
cement the molecular claims of close relationship. Fortunately it did not
fly, although most have gone for their alternative higher rank (hominin or
whatever).

John Grehan

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
wrote:

> I've suggested the "dissilient" genus concept, in which a group higher
> than a species is identified by a central core generalist species off of
> which there is clear adaptive radiation of daughter species. See p. 82, 93
> of
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/Repr/Zander-Framework.pdf
>
> This is fairly natural, being a salute from Nature to a successful bauplan.
>
> That rank has no reality is nihilism. Practical uses for inferred
> processes based on experience is the test. Only if evolution is rejected
> can such nihilism be justified.
>
> Richard
>
>
> -------
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110
> – USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Scott Thomson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:19 AM
> To: JF Mate
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] large animal genera
>
> The reasons for your "large" genera are going to depend on many factors,
> apart from those listed by Peter Rauch there is also to take into
> consideration what you think a genus actually is, and different taxonomists
> have different opinions of this, hence looking for a pattern will also be
> finding the pattern of views of the taxonomists who have been working on
> those groups. Anthony says they are not real, which is pretty much the
> accepted view currently, this has not always been the case, and recent
> modelling on mammals has shown that there are possibly ESU's above the
> species level and that these could be genera, meaning they may actually be
> real entities. Personally I am not satisfied with the currently accepted
> definition and concept of the genus, I use it because it requires rigorous
> testing to come up with something new, which has not been done. However, I
> do think that one of the main factors in any pattern currently will be
> differing opinions.
>
> Cheers, Scott
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:49 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Be that as it may, a genus may be large because of high speciation,
> > low lineage extinction and morphological stasis, the combination
> > resulting in a dense "bush" with no clear breaks. If that is
> > biologically profound or just a lucky, random combination of
> > circumstances is a moot point. It is still interesting to humans who
> > are active pattern searchers.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 May 2015 at 12:18, Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There are large genera because taxonomist have made them as such.
> > Taxonomic
> > > rank has no reality, so there's not much point in trying to look for
> > common
> > > causes.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hmmm.  So why are these (and other) genera so large ?   :>)
> > >>
> > >> -- No splitters among those taxonomists ?  (Do those large genera
> > >> have
> > an
> > >> abundance of "subgenera" (or whatever other groupings might have
> > >> been
> > >> discerned) ?)
> > >>
> > >> --Too many splitters among those taxonomists --there really aren't
> > >> that many "species" in those genera ?
> > >>
> > >> -- They're insects --what more explanation is needed ? (Aside from
> > insects,
> > >> what other groups of animals [might] have such large genera ? Felix
> > >> mentioned one mite genus.)
> > >>
> > >> -- It's just an illusion --once we classify all the world's
> > >> animals,
> > we'll
> > >> find many more large genera ? Or, once we look closer at these
> > >> known
> > large
> > >> genera, we'll discover that they are really divisible into many new
> > genera
> > >> (relates to the first question above, I suppose) ?
> > >>
> > >> -- Other reasons ?
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On 5/25/15 10:55 PM, Felix Sperling wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> What animal genera have more than 900 species? I'm hoping to
> > >> >> find out
> > >> how
> > >> >> unusually species-rich the water mite genus Arrenurus is.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Reply to Heather Proctor at hproctor at ualberta.ca.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  Nomada has around 900, Cerceris has around 1030, and
> > >> >> Lasioglossum
> > has
> > >> > about 1050 (depending on how you define it), Andrena has around
> > >> > 1060,
> > but
> > >> > Agrilus puts them to shame, at over 3000. Goodness knows how one
> > should
> > >> > deal with Cicindela and Carabus.
> > >> >
> > >> > Peace,
> > >> > --
> > >> > Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research
> Museum
> > >> > Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> > >> > phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> > >> >              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > ...
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr Anthony C. Gill
> > > Natural History Curator
> > > A12 Macleay Museum
> > > University of Sydney
> > > NSW 2006
> > > Australia.
> > >
> > > Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
> Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo Divisão de Vertebrados
> (Herpetologia) Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga 04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
> Brasil http://www.carettochelys.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> Skype: Faendalimas
> Reptile Names (my blog) http://reptilenames.wordpress.com/
> Mobile Phone: +55 11 996 48 5668
> Mobile in Australia +61 402 357 553 (0402 357 553)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>