[Taxacom] fossil potato relative

[Rocio Deanna]

There are some problems in the phylogeny, for example, Nicadra is not
sister to Deprea, and Iochrominae is not so closely related to Deprea (also
Deprea is monophyletic).
About apomorphies, the ones that place the fossil within Physalis (for
example, secondary veins that fork before the sinus) are found in other
lineages of the Physalideae tribe, but they were not sampled in the
phylogeny. We need to increase the sampling in order to get a better
placement of the fossils, but also to get a better phylogeny of the tribe
that is still unresolved (see Zamora Tavares et al. 2016
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790316300343>).

*Dr. Rocío Deanna*
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV, CONICET-UNC);
Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rocio_Deanna3



2018-06-17 14:58 GMT-06:00 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>:

> Rocio,
>
> Very pleased to see that you recognize molecular estimates as minimum - a
> major improvement on most molecular papers (and some assertions made on
> this list). But on the taxonomy I interpreted your statement that "  it
> would be probably placed in a deeper node of Solanaceae instead Physalis"
> to mean that they got the taxonomy (and phylogeny) wrong. Please clarify my
> confusion on that. Does the fossil exhibit apomorphies that place it in
> Physalis, or are you saying that it has apomorphies that place it in
> another lineage?
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Rocio Deanna <rociodeanna at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> First, estimated dates are always hypotheses, and yes, minimum date
>> hypotheses. Second, Wilf et al. did not get their taxonomy wrong. They well
>> defined several traits that positioned the fossils into Physalis. Now we
>> are considering more traits and scoring them as continuous. Also, we are
>> using different models to estimate the position and a broader sampling. We
>> are building knowledge on the divergence minimum dates of the family,
>> working together.
>>
>> Rocio
>>
>>
>> *Dr. Rocío Deanna*
>> Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV, CONICET-UNC);
>> Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rocio_Deanna3
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-06-17 14:42 GMT-06:00 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> An interesting add on comment - Ken made reference to the need for
>>> expertise on fossils for proper interpretation of fossils for biogeographic
>>> work, but here we seem to have an indication that one expert (Rocío),
>>> is suggesting that other experts ( Wilf et al) got their taxonomy all
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> John Grehan
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>> <#m_-2682569694121117665_m_4105834399923638110_m_6766300590844125405_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Rocio Deanna <rociodeanna at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Wilf's fossils (2017) are the best evidence within Solanaceae
>>>> to
>>>> estimate divergence times up to now. Previous used fossils were seeds
>>>> and
>>>> pollen, so this is the first fossil fruits within the family and,
>>>> therefore, the only one with much more traits to place it in an specific
>>>> clade. However, it would be probably placed in a deeper node of
>>>> Solanaceae
>>>> instead Physalis. I'm working on this divergence time estimation using
>>>> molecular clocks and all these fossils. It requires much more effort by
>>>> coding all the characters on extant taxa, but I think that including all
>>>> the available evidence will help estimating more precise dates.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rocio
>>>>
>>>> *Dr. Rocío Deanna*
>>>>
>>>> Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV, CONICET-UNC);
>>>> Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba,
>>>> Argentina.
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rocio_Deanna3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-06-15 1:24 GMT-06:00 Péter Poczai <peter.poczai at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > The Wilf et al. (2017) 'Physalis' fossil is indeed interesting,
>>>> however,
>>>> > I'm more than suspicious about it since this is the only (!) fossil
>>>> record,
>>>> > which stands out in Solanaceae pushing the dates back considerably
>>>> for the
>>>> > family. There are 50 other fossil
>>>> > <https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471
>>>> -2148-13-214>
>>>> > records from Solanaceae, which are congruent with molecular studies
>>>> > <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.0900346>
>>>> putting the
>>>> > age of the family around 46-54 million years or a bit further.
>>>> Recently
>>>> > discovered Ipomoea fossils (58-55 MY) from Convolvulaceae by
>>>> Srivastava et
>>>> > al. (2018) <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29784796> also date
>>>> the
>>>> > split of the two sister families  Convolvulaceae/Solanaceae in
>>>> Solanales
>>>> > before
>>>> > the Eocene in the Gondwana-derived continents. The Wilf et al. (2017)
>>>> > fossil also contradicts the 36 fossils used to calibrate the entire
>>>> > angiosperm tree by Bell et al. (2010)
>>>> > <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.0900346>. If it
>>>> > would
>>>> > be placed to that tree it would push back the age of all angiosperms.
>>>> To me
>>>> > this doesn't look convincing, I think it is assigned to a wrong group
>>>> and
>>>> > it should be place somewhere deeper in the Solanaceae tree than in
>>>> > Physalis. This record is either something really big, in that case
>>>> fossil
>>>> > records of the same age will be found at some point, but currently it
>>>> > stands out from all other fossils.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers
>>>> > Péter
>>>> >
>>>> > 2018-06-15 6:58 GMT+03:00 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Hi Ken,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Some disagreement here. Not surprising. See below.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “I would not treat ALL molecular divergence estimates as minimums.
>>>> At
>>>> > > least some clock estimates for the origin of primates apparently
>>>> range
>>>> > from
>>>> > > 80-120 million years ago”.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > But the different dates are each minimums. So you have a minimum of
>>>> 80
>>>> > to a
>>>> > > minimum of 120.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “If primates actually originated in the Paleocene (as many primate
>>>> > > paleontologists maintain), then 80-120 million years ago are
>>>> > overestimates,
>>>> > > not underestimated minimums.”
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Only if.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “Molecular studies overseen by actual paleontologists probably tend
>>>> to
>>>> > weed
>>>> > > out inaccurate interpretations and therefore tend to be more
>>>> accurate.
>>>> > But
>>>> > > some molecular results are probably too often done by researchers
>>>> who
>>>> > have
>>>> > > little or no paleontological experience.”
>>>> > >
>>>> > > One can only be as accurate about the fossil as the specialists
>>>> say. And
>>>> > > definitney agree with you that correct assignment of fossils can be
>>>> > > problematic. I had experience of a case of a ‘monkey’ fossil in the
>>>> > > Oligocene that had skull features of an ape. I and a primate
>>>> specialist
>>>> > > wrote a paper pointing that out, but the editor just gave it to the
>>>> > authors
>>>> > > of the monkey interpretation and of course they condemned it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “ Probably best to regard molecular divergence estimates as just
>>>> crude
>>>> > > estimates that can be inaccurate in BOTH directions.”
>>>> > >
>>>> > > But as they are all miniums they cannot go in different directions.
>>>> > That’s
>>>> > > the difference with tectonic calibrations which are indeed an
>>>> > approximation
>>>> > > of an actual date.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “In particular, I would tend to trust the perspective and extensive
>>>> > > experience of researchers like Goswami and Upchurch over either
>>>> > > molecularists or panbiogeographers who couldn't identify the fossil
>>>> > > primates in question if their lives depended on it.”
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The whole point of science publication is the publication of
>>>> accurate
>>>> > > information by which fossils are assigned. If these cannot be given
>>>> as
>>>> > much
>>>> > > authority as the authors then science as a whole  is down the drain?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “Too often it seems that we probably have something like the tail
>>>> trying
>>>> > to
>>>> > > wag the dog. “
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ???
>>>> > >
>>>> > > “Would you like it if Goswami and Upchurch were challenging your
>>>> views on
>>>> > > moth evolution? “
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Sorry? What planet are you on? That’s the whole point of science,
>>>> > > beginning, middle, and end! At least on the planet I am on (sorry
>>>> for the
>>>> > > possibly misguided humor, but I am somewhat shocked that you could
>>>> imply
>>>> > > that I would object to being challenged by anyone on any of my
>>>> work. This
>>>> > > is supposed to be science after all).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Cheers, John Grehan
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Kenneth Kinman <
>>>> kinman at hotmail.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > John,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >       I would not treat ALL molecular divergence estimates as
>>>> minimums.
>>>> > > At
>>>> > > > least some clock estimates for the origin of primates apparently
>>>> range
>>>> > > from
>>>> > > > 80-120 million years ago.  If primates actually originated in the
>>>> > > Paleocene
>>>> > > > (as many primate paleontologists maintain), then 80-120 million
>>>> years
>>>> > ago
>>>> > > > are overestimates, not underestimated minimums.  Molecular studies
>>>> > > overseen
>>>> > > > by actual paleontologists probably tend to weed out inaccurate
>>>> > > > interpretations and therefore tend to be more accurate.  But some
>>>> > > molecular
>>>> > > > results are probably too often done by researchers who have
>>>> little or
>>>> > no
>>>> > > > paleontological experience.  Probably best to regard molecular
>>>> > divergence
>>>> > > > estimates as just crude estimates that can be inaccurate in BOTH
>>>> > > > directions.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >       In particular, I would tend to trust the perspective and
>>>> > extensive
>>>> > > > experience of researchers like Goswami and Upchurch over either
>>>> > > > molecularists or panbiogeographers who couldn't identify the
>>>> fossil
>>>> > > > primates in question if their lives depended on it.  Too often it
>>>> seems
>>>> > > > that we probably have something like the tail trying to wag the
>>>> dog.
>>>> > > Would
>>>> > > > you like it if Goswami and Upchurch were challenging your views
>>>> on moth
>>>> > > > evolution?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >                                 --------------Ken
>>>> > > > ------------------------------
>>>> > > > *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf
>>>> of John
>>>> > > > Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> > > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:17 PM
>>>> > > > *To:* Scott Thomson
>>>> > > > *Cc:* taxacom
>>>> > > > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] fossil potato relative
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Which illustrates well why to treat all molecular divergence
>>>> estimates
>>>> > as
>>>> > > > minimums. That way at least one is not skewing history to fit and
>>>> not
>>>> > so
>>>> > > > critical if fossils are missed (which one would hope that a proper
>>>> > effort
>>>> > > > was made in that regard).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > John Grehan
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Scott Thomson <
>>>> > > scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I have to say also I find the reliance on molecular dates in
>>>> recent
>>>> > > times
>>>> > > > > disturbing. I have seen dates for groups of 23 mya, 35 mya, and
>>>> 52
>>>> > mya
>>>> > > (3
>>>> > > > > separate published papers) on a group that had an actual
>>>> fossil, a
>>>> > good
>>>> > > > > one, that was well dated to over 100 mya. I also find the
>>>> assumptions
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > > > molecular dates to be rather daring ones and a bit disturbing
>>>> when I
>>>> > > > > realise that in many cases the fossils used to calibrate such
>>>> tests
>>>> > are
>>>> > > > > obtained by obtaining info from a quick perusal of Fossilworks.
>>>> I
>>>> > take
>>>> > > > > molecular dates with a grain of salt.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Cheers Scott
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:54 PM, John Grehan <
>>>> calabar.john at gmail.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Probably just being polite :)
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Here is what they said in their article. Note the first
>>>> sentence in
>>>> > > > > > particular.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > "Our results reinforce the emerging pattern
>>>> > > > > > wherein numerous fossil plant taxa from Gondwanan
>>>> > > > > > Patagonia and Antarctica are substantially
>>>> > > > > > older than their corresponding molecular
>>>> > > > > > dates (26, 27), demonstrating Gondwanan history
>>>> > > > > > for groups conjectured to have post-Gondwanan
>>>> > > > > > origins under entirely different paleogeographic
>>>> > > > > > and paleoclimatic scenarios. Likewise, the derived
>>>> > > > > > position of the newly identified fossil species
>>>> > > > > > shows that the origins and diversification
>>>> > > > > > of Solanaceae must have taken place at a much
>>>> > > > > > earlier time than previously thought, considerably
>>>> > > > > > before final Gondwanan breakup. Other
>>>> > > > > > regions of Gondwana are also likely to have
>>>> > > > > > played prominent roles in Solanaceae evolution,
>>>> > > > > > especially Antarctica, which has produced
>>>> > > > > > other important asterid fossils (27). Moreover,
>>>> > > > > > the newly identified fossils directly help to
>>>> > > > > > resolve temporal inconsistencies between the
>>>> > > > > > evolutionary timing of Solanaceae and its herbivores
>>>> > > > > > and mutualists (28). The large fossil
>>>> > > > > > berry strongly implicates trophic associations
>>>> > > > > > with animals, as seen in extant Physalis (29).
>>>> > > > > > Today, Physalis inhabits South, Central, and
>>>> > > > > > North America, and Mexico is its center of diversity
>>>> > > > > > (2). Thus, the fossils establish a rare link
>>>> > > > > > to extant New World floras from late-Gondwanan
>>>> > > > > > Patagonian assemblages, whose living relatives
>>>> > > > > > are mostly concentrated in the Old World tropics
>>>> > > > > > and subtropics."
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:21 PM, David Campbell <
>>>> > > pleuronaia at gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > "The fossils underpin the need for researchers to be
>>>> careful"
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Why not conclude "the fossils show that the molecular clock
>>>> dates
>>>> > > > were
>>>> > > > > > > wrong"?  Calibration, calculation, and interpretation of
>>>> > molecular
>>>> > > > > clocks
>>>> > > > > > > all have serious problems - why use them?
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:52 PM, John Grehan <
>>>> > > calabar.john at gmail.com
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Not making any judgement about this one, but notice
>>>> comment on
>>>> > > > > > molecular
>>>> > > > > > > > clocks at the end.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > John Grehan
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/
>>>> > > > <http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/>
>>>> > > > Plants and Animals | IFLScience
>>>> > > > <http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/>
>>>> > > > www.iflscience.com
>>>> > > > Researchers find that the opah fish, which was the first fish
>>>> found to
>>>> > be
>>>> > > > fully warm-blooded, is act...
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > 52millionyearold-fossil-
>>>> > > > > > > > relative-to-the-potato-discovered-in-patagonia/
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Despite becoming ubiquitous in almost every corner of the
>>>> > world,
>>>> > > > > > > > surprisingly little is known about the deep evolutionary
>>>> > history
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > group of plants that gave rise to potatoes, tomatoes, and
>>>> > > tobacco.
>>>> > > > > > > > Now, researchers
>>>> > > > > > > > have found
>>>> > > > > > > > <http://phys.org/news/2017-01-south-american-fossil-
>>>> > > > > > > > tomatillos-nightshades.html>
>>>> > > > > > > >  just how far back these organisms go, with the discovery
>>>> of a
>>>> > > > fossil
>>>> > > > > > > > relative that dates back to 52 million years ago, tens of
>>>> > > millions
>>>> > > > of
>>>> > > > > > > years
>>>> > > > > > > > older than previously thought.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > The fossil belongs to a fragile berry of a plant known as
>>>> a
>>>> > > > > tomatillo,
>>>> > > > > > or
>>>> > > > > > > > ground cherry. They form fruit that is often surrounded
>>>> by a
>>>> > > thin,
>>>> > > > > > papery
>>>> > > > > > > > lantern, making it difficult for them to be fossilized
>>>> > > > > > > > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38511034>.
>>>> > > Members
>>>> > > > of
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > *Physalis* genus, they form a small branch of the
>>>> nightshade
>>>> > > > family,
>>>> > > > > > > which
>>>> > > > > > > > in turn includes many commercially important crops, from
>>>> > potatoes
>>>> > > > > > > > and petunias to chillies and aubergines.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > The only fossil fruits ever found from this family of
>>>> almost
>>>> > > 2,000
>>>> > > > > > > species
>>>> > > > > > > > of plants, the two specimens were discovered in a
>>>> fossilized
>>>> > > > > rainforest
>>>> > > > > > > > that once grew across Patagonia in South America. With a
>>>> lack
>>>> > of
>>>> > > > > > > available
>>>> > > > > > > > fossils for this group of plants, researchers have had to
>>>> rely
>>>> > on
>>>> > > > > > > molecular
>>>> > > > > > > > dates for when the nightshade plants first evolved, and
>>>> had
>>>> > > settled
>>>> > > > > on
>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > figure of around 35 to 51 million years old, while the
>>>> > tomatillo
>>>> > > > was
>>>> > > > > > > > thought to be a relative newcomer at only 10 million
>>>> years old.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > This new discovery, however, completely changes this. The
>>>> > > fossils,
>>>> > > > > > dating
>>>> > > > > > > > to 52 million years ago, show that the ground cherries are
>>>> > > > actually a
>>>> > > > > > > > relatively ancient branch of the nightshade family. “We
>>>> > > > exhaustively
>>>> > > > > > > > analyzed every detail of these fossils in comparison with
>>>> all
>>>> > > > > potential
>>>> > > > > > > > living relatives and there is no question that they
>>>> represent
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > world's
>>>> > > > > > > > first physalis fossils and the first fossil fruits of the
>>>> > > > nightshade
>>>> > > > > > > > family,” says
>>>> > > > > > > > <http://phys.org/news/2017-01-south-american-fossil-
>>>> > > > > > > > tomatillos-nightshades.html>
>>>> > > > > > > >  Professor Peter Wilf, from Pennsylvania State University.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > The fossils underpin the need for researchers to be
>>>> careful
>>>> > when
>>>> > > > > > deducing
>>>> > > > > > > > an organism's evolutionary age solely from molecular
>>>> clocks.
>>>> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > > > > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> > > > 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
>>>> > > > > > > > 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 31 Some
>>>> Years,
>>>> > > > > > 1987-2018.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > --
>>>> > > > > > > Dr. David Campbell
>>>> > > > > > > Associate Professor, Geology
>>>> > > > > > > Department of Natural Sciences
>>>> > > > > > > Box 7270
>>>> > > > > > > Gardner-Webb University
>>>> > > > > > > Boiling Springs NC 28017
>>>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > > > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> > > 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
>>>> > > > > > > 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 31 Some
>>>> Years,
>>>> > > > > 1987-2018.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> > 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
>>>> > > > > > 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> > > > 1987-2018.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > --
>>>> > > > > Scott Thomson
>>>> > > > > Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=de+S%C3%A3o+Paulo+%0D%0A+Avenida+Nazar%C3%A9,+481,+Ipiranga&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> > > > > Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=de+S%C3%A3o+Paulo+%0D%0A+Avenida+Nazar%C3%A9,+481,+Ipiranga&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> > > > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Avenida+Nazar%C3%A9,+481,+
>>>> > > Ipiranga+%0D%0A+04263-000,+S%C3%A3o+Paulo,+SP,+Brasil&
>>>> > entry=gmail&source=g
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
>>>> > > > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Avenida+Nazar%C3%A9,+481,+
>>>> > > Ipiranga+%0D%0A+04263-000,+S%C3%A3o+Paulo,+SP,+Brasil&
>>>> > entry=gmail&source=g
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Chelonian Research Institute
>>>> > > > > 402 South Central Avenue,
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=402+South+Central+Avenue,+%0D%0A+Oviedo,+32765,+Florida,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> > > > > Oviedo, 32765, Florida, USA
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=402+South+Central+Avenue,+%0D%0A+Oviedo,+32765,+Florida,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > http://www.carettochelys.com
>>>> > > > > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
>>>> > > > > Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
>>>> > > > > <https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=
>>>> > > > > 1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
>>>> > > > > Skype: Faendalimas
>>>> > > > > Skype Number: +55 (11) 3280 0144
>>>> > > > > Mobile Phone: +55 11 94025 0499
>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> 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
>>>> > > > > 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> > > 1987-2018.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> 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
>>>> > > > 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> > 1987-2018.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
>>>> 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
>>>> > > 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2018.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Dr Péter Poczai, PhD
>>>> > Curator, CITES Scientific Authority
>>>> > Botany Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural History
>>>> > PO Box 7 University of Helsinki
>>>> > FI-00014 Helsinki
>>>> > Finland
>>>> > Cell.:+358-41-752-5158
>>>> > https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/en/person/poczai
>>>> >
>>>> > "*Vive memor nostri rigidi servator honesti*"
>>>> > (Live, remember, you are the guardian of our honor)
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
>>>> > 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2018.
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
>>>> 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 31 Some Years,
>>>> 1987-2018.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>