[Taxacom] OK Taxacomers, you have had your chance, now it's the lawyers turn.

Tue Nov 28 13:53:27 CST 2017

Sooo innocent. Agencies fund science. Consider that an agency (particularly those headed by a minion of the mammon-worshipping neofascists) can deny any grant proposal or official publication if the organisms involved cannot be demonstrated through proper experiments as delineated by the biological species concept. 

Every proposal that affects government and research funding should be considered, in this day and age, as quite possibly a monstrous attack on science and scientists. The fallout, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how inconceivably brainless, needs to be considered.

-------
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 Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:32 PM
To: James H.Beach; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Donat Agosti
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OK Taxacomers, you have had your chance, now it's the lawyers turn.

My understanding (not having had time to read it with utmost care, so please tell me if I am wrong) is that nobody is trying to force taxonomists to adopt any particular "definition" of "species", but rather that conservation (and possibly other) "decision makers" should all follow a standard definition. Personally, I don't care what definition of species such "decision makers" use, so I don't see this as a big deal, and I don't see that it will have any impact on taxonomy, just on conservation, etc.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 28/11/17, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OK Taxacomers, you have had your chance, now it's the lawyers turn.
 To: "Beach, James H." <beach at ku.edu>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 28 November, 2017, 6:23 PM

 I think it is well worth reading
 the entire press release

 "Today, PLF and several allied
 organizations submitted a petition for rule-making to the  federal agencies that administer the Endangered Species Act.
 The petition asks the agencies to define “species” and  “subspecies,” terms which, although critical to the  Act’s operation, are left undefined by statute and  regulation. Not surprisingly, this lacuna has produced  inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making (see, e.g., the  litigious and ongoing debates over the coastal California  gnatcatcher’s subspecies designation), with landowners  typically shouldering the burden. The lack of guidance also  has resulted, according to some critics, in the agencies’
 playing of a “numbers game,” whereby a single species is  split into multiple species or subspecies, and because each  resulting taxonomic unit will have fewer numbers and smaller  ranges, each will be at greater risk of extinction and  therefore more likely to be listed.

 Our petition seeks an end to the arbitrariness  through the setting of clear, scientifically defensible and  politically sensible definitions for the statutory terms  “species” and “subspecies.” The petition recommends  that, for the former, the longstanding and well-regarded  biological species concept be adopted, according to which a  species is delimited by reproductive isolation. For the  latter, the petition asks for the adoption of a variant of  the equally longstanding “75% rule,” pursuant to which  individuals within a species must be diagnosed accurately at  least 75% of the time as belonging to putative Subspecies A  or B or C, etc., using genetic or other biologically  significant characters.

 Although not universally accepted in the  scientific community, our proposed definitions are  scientifically defensible. And in any event, no single  definition of “species” or “subspecies” will receive  unanimous support from the scientific community, in part  because neither term is a pure function of science. Rather,  both are terms of convenience, deriving their value from  larger conservation policy. Informing that larger policy is  the fact that the protection of all populations is  economically and socially infeasible. Sound conservation  demands prioritization. Many scientists believe that the  priority of conservation should be the preservation of  evolutionary potential—i.e., biodiversity. If that is  correct, then being choosy about which populations can be  eligible for protection makes sense as a matter of  science.

 But it also makes
 for good social policy. Moderating the Act’s economic  impact through fewer listings—a likely consequence of  adopting rigorous taxonomic standards that will eliminate  outmoded classifications—lessens the chance of a public  backlash that might undercut support for wildlife  protection. Moreover, time and money that might have been  spent on protecting insignificant populations instead can be  directed toward those populations the preservation of which  best serves biodiversity. We therefore hope that the  agencies will respond promptly—and favorably—to our  proposal."

 https://pacificlegal.org/a-petition-to-resolve-the-endangered-species-act-taxonomy-debate/

 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Beach, James H.
 Sent: Monday,
 November 27, 2017 11:39 PM
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Subject: [Taxacom] OK Taxacomers, you have had  your chance, now it's the lawyers turn.

 Lawyers decide the definition
 of 'species'.

 From
 the article:

 Today, PLF and
 several allied organizations submitted a petition for  rule-making<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpacificlegal.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FESA-Taxonomy-Rulemaking-Petition.pdf&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=aIOjzCJXtjQDc%2FlGygLcJCAEfYo2qTcY5NVcq5cowFk%3D&reserved=0>
 to the [U.S.] federal agencies that administer the  Endangered Species Act.

 ...

 Our
 petition seeks an end to the arbitrariness [of what a  species is] through the setting of clear, scientifically  defensible and politically sensible definitions for the  statutory terms "species" and  "subspecies." The petition recommends that, for  the former, the longstanding and well-regarded biological  species concept be adopted, according to which a species is  delimited by reproductive isolation. For the latter, the  petition asks for the adoption of a variant of the equally  longstanding "75% rule," pursuant to which  individuals within a species must be diagnosed accurately at  least 75% of the time as belonging to putative Subspecies A  or B or C, etc., using genetic or other biologically  significant characters.

 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpacificlegal.org%2Fa-petition-to-resolve-the-endangered-species-act-taxonomy-debate%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=rnLVzOQsySGqS3rDRcwNp8T5Dy4cyG%2F71UBejRo21j8%3D&reserved=0

 James H. Beach
 Biodiversity Institute
 University of Kansas
 1345
 Jayhawk Boulevard
 Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
 Office: 785-864-4645
 Cell:
 785-331-8508
 Zoom: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkansas.zoom.us%2Fmy%2Fspecify&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=%2B4m7S8zhrhdfku44qF6xm8C0tZfLRoV3JnJ4x892J7o%3D&reserved=0

 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=wSVDP%2B11fFqn6XuJkh0r6xTPi5KOxsgdpfuf0fSZZck%3D&reserved=0
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be  searched at: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=CjPre%2Ft9Z4IjPANiSl81NDJFvZmCI2G%2FBApcXgw7QqA%3D&reserved=0

 Send Taxacom mailing list
 submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=01%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C91e0a32c19a4481e38d208d535e7a9d1%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0&sdata=wSVDP%2B11fFqn6XuJkh0r6xTPi5KOxsgdpfuf0fSZZck%3D&reserved=0
 You can reach the person managing the list at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
 _______________________________________________
 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

 Send Taxacom mailing list
 submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the list at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.

_______________________________________________
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

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.