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

Tue Nov 28 14:21:02 CST 2017

Really!! I'm not sure that any grant proposals specify which species concepts they are intending to use, or any funding agency that cares either way! Given the amount of garbage science that results from various funded projects anyway, and nobody seems to care, I think any fears of "use this species concept, or we won't give you any money!" are pretty lame. One exception though: if a particular species concept was adopted by a conservation agency, which then wanted to fund a taxonomist, it might be a requirement that the taxonomist follows the preferred species concept of the funding conservation agency, but such situations are probably few and far between.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 29/11/17, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] OK Taxacomers, you have had your chance, now it's the lawyers turn.
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "James H.Beach" <beach at ku.edu>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
 Received: Wednesday, 29 November, 2017, 8:53 AM

 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.