[Taxacom] fossil potato relative

[John Grehan]

OK. Makes sense. It will be interesting if you manage to locate any unique
apomorphies in the fossil that unambiguously place it within a particular
morphologically defined extant group. Hope you post the results to TAXACOM
when that time comes.

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>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Rocio Deanna <rociodeanna at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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_-8924394261869879740_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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>