[Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal vs. vicariance
JF Mate
aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 19:52:26 CDT 2018
Thanks Daniel. It certainly has become a lousy debate, and although I
am pushing the patience of other taxacomers, and Ken is much wiser
than me in letting this whole affair go, forgive me if I give it one
more go before abandoning the enterprise altogether. Apologies if this
last post on the topic sounds somewhat crabby.
John & Michael, I am familiar with the literature although it is
always useful to ask for a working definition of what the other person
is thinking, since such things tend to be fluid over time.
When you say that "The prominent 'debate' (and suppression of) over
vicariance has been around now for about 40-50 years now (also in
existence earlier, but suppression of the subject was pretty much
total) and likely to continue for some indefinite time in the future,
despite some expressions of frustration in the literature that the
vicariance approach has been 'falsified' and should just go away,
disappear etc."
I can´t understand what you mean. Anybody who is familiar with the
biogeography literature since the 70´s knows that vicariance has
reigned supreme during most of this time. It has been a case of
developing the appropriate framework to test both mechanisms (area
cladograms, molecular phylogenetics, ...), with the pendulum swinging
but staying primarily over vicariance.
By applying a Panbiogeographic orthodoxy you eventually reach the
point where the inconsistencies and the stretching of facts pushes you
to make rather extraordinary claims such as the existence of monkeys
in the lower Cretaceous. This requires that we stretch most crown
lineages well into the L Cretaceous or U Jurassic, a time when all you
get are a few fossils of non-crown mammals or some dubious monotremes.
Are you saying that all mammalian lineages have the same gap in the
fossil record of many tens of millions of years (50-70my)? What is
your evidence for making this claim other than it being necessary to
fit the phylogeny on to tectonics? I expect extraordinary evidence in
order to accept this and so far it is not forthcoming. Saying that
"fossils are just minimum ages" is one thing, but accepting on faith
that all the fossil evidence is short by half is quite another.
I see no point in pressing you on dung beetle biogeography since your
replies indicate you can´t or won´t offer useful input. However I must
reiterate my query regarding Inachis io and D. plexippus as I am
curious to know if this is "normal" dispersal or not. Because you see,
the idea that: "Normal dispersal is seen every day ..., and takes
place by normal, observed means of dispersal." is strange. What is
normal? The dispersal distance observed everyday, month, year,
decade..., which? Unassisted by wind, or currents or hitching a ride
on other organisms? Are a few tattered butterflies arriving to the
coast of a distant land after and oceanic crossing an example of
"normal" dispersal? Winning the lottery is not normal, but it happens,
you just need to buy tickets and if you buy lots of tickets or play
for long enough you have a fair chance of winning.
This then brings us to the second point where you assert that "This
sort of dispersal does not lead to speciation." I am assuming here
that you use the expression as a sort of short-hand (and rejection) of
peripatric speciation. This implies that you consider barriers to be
either completely porous (normal dispersal) or completely impermeable
(lond distance dispersal, LDD). The evidence that is available, as far
as metapopulation studies is concerned, demonstrates a spectrum which
depends on each lineages inherent ability and, yes, luck. Also the
relative permeability of a barrier is fluid in time. A growing ocean
between two plates becomes gradually impermeable for all except the
most mobile taxa, but the process is gradual and may not be entirely
effective as per the examples provided above (and others I have
provided). If so it boils down to an issue of semantics when
distinguishing between "normal" and LD dispersal, except as a
subterfuge.
Jason
On 18 June 2018 at 08:20, Daniel Leo Gustafsson
<kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, let's be honest and admit that repeated references to nazi propaganda
> and creationism in describing the arguments and evidence of the people
> you're arguing with isn't typical of all forms of science... More "Makhan
> style" than "Darwin style", so to speak.
>
>
> Incidentally, to me, this whole discussion is reminiscent of the
> discussions on the evolution and distribution of certain bird parasites
> during the mid-20th century. People like Wolfdietrich Eichler would argue
> that since chewing lice (and certain other parasites) have no free-living
> stage, their phylogeny should be a mirror image of that of their hosts (the
> so-called Fahrenholz' Rule). Any transmission between hosts was assumed to
> be extremely rare, and have no phylogenetic impact (i.e. it was assumed
> that lice *never* successfully established themselves on novel hosts). This
> further lead to the assumption that all lice found on a novel host must
> necessarily be a new species, regardless of whether or not there is any
> evidence for this. Eichler very clearly stated (in 1943, I think), that
> it's methodologically more accurate to say "we do not yet know what the
> morphological differences between these two taxa are" than to say "there
> two taxa are morphologically identical, so they are the same species". As a
> result, virtually no taxa on any level described by Eichler and his
> followers can be identified from their descriptions, as host associations
> was assumed to be "good enough" as a species description.
>
> The dogmatism of certain recurring participants of these discussions here
> are amusingly similar to Eichler's repeated statement that there "are *no*
> documented cases of a species of louse occurring naturally on two host
> species" -- a statement reinforced by him habitually splitting all lice
> from multiple host species into host-specific species, often without ever
> seeing any specimens.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken, That's your privilege. No one had to like how I respond. Your
>> choice. Sometimes I don't like the way you say things either, but I ignore
>> that as irrelevant and do the best I can to respond. Such responses may not
>> always meet the desires of the recipient, but that's life (and science).
>>
>> Cheers, John Grehan
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Jason,
>> >
>> > I agree. Your description "instead it all ends in a series of
>> > zingers written in scripted, telegraphic style" would pretty much
>> describe
>> > my views of John's polemics in particular. Especially when his zingers
>> > involve creationists or Hitler Thus my reluctance to respond to most of
>> > his e-mails. I think I will now answer Michael's post instead.
>> >
>> > ------------------- Ken
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of JF Mate
>> <
>> > aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:41 PM
>> > To: Taxacom
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Oceanic dispersal vs. vicariance
>> >
>> > John, Michael, this isn´t going anywhere. I was waiting for a hint of
>> > proper debate but instead it all ends in a series of "zingers" written
>> > in scripted, telegraphic style. I have not seen any ideas presented by
>> > either one of you that aren´t encapsulated and operationalized in a
>> > superior manner in cladistic biogeography or evolutionary
>> > biogeography, sans the unproven axiomatic mania that dispersal doesn´t
>> > occur. In fact, you don´t seem to to agree on a definition of
>> > dispersal or if it even occurs (Michael says he doesn´t question
>> > "slight" dispersal, but you say otherwise). To move the debate towards
>> > some clear definition of dispersal, I would point to present day,
>> > observable examples such as Inachis io crossing from Europe to NA or
>> > Danaus plexippus going the other way. To me these are clear, working
>> > examples of dispersal, some successful (D. plexippus) others, like
>> > Inachis io, failing time after time. Neither is a slight jump Please
>> > think about this carefully before replying.
>> >
>> > In regards to the dung beetle fauna of Madagascar, we first have to
>> > consider the fossil evidence. The oldest known Scarabaeinae fossil is
>> > of unknown affinity (Prionocephale deplanate, U Cretaceous; Krell,
>> > 2007). Between this assumed Scarabaeinae fossil and clearly
>> > identifiable ones we have to jump to the Palaeocene-Miocene, where we
>> > find ichnofossils (brood balls). This in itself is interesting because
>> > they are the sort of easily preserved structures we should expect to
>> > commonly find (actually common in paleosols in SA), but we don´t in
>> > older deposits, so we must assume that they were either uncommon or
>> > nonexistent. This doesn´t mean that Scarabaeinae were not found then
>> > but that lineages that build deep nests with brood balls evolved after
>> > the K-T. These lineages are also found in Madagascar nowadays
>> > (Helictopleurus, Onthophagus, Scarabaeus) so their presence there is
>> > difficult to reconcile with a purely vicariant model, even without
>> > considering the phylogenetic evidence which have them evolving in the
>> > Palaeocene.
>> >
>> > The Malagasy genera endemic genera (except Onthophagus) that have been
>> > studied yield the following date estimates:
>> >
>> > Arachnodes, Epilissus & Apterepilissus 79-49my
>> > Nanos & Apotolamprus 24-15my (Wirta, Helena. (2018). Dung beetle
>> > radiations in Madagascar. )
>> > Epactoides 30-19my
>> > Helictopleurus 37-23 (doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.010)
>> > Scarabaeus 24-15my
>> > Onthophagus: >3 colonizations (age of entire Onthophagini lineage,
>> > Palaeocene)
>> > doi:10.3390/insects2020112
>> > doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00139.
>> >
>> >
>> > The Aphodiiinae presents more complex biogeography. The oldest fossil
>> > (a generalized "aegialid-like" genus from the Lower Cretaceous,
>> > Cretaegialia) suggests a window that may enable some of the lineages
>> > to be Gondwanan. However, the "coprophilous" Aphodiini are generally
>> > assumed to be Laurasian in origin (incorrectly in my opinion but we
>> > have to refer to the published studies). This in itself, plus their
>> > assumed recent origin ( <60my; DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.10.019; the
>> > oldest fossil evidence is Miocene.), makes it almost impossible for
>> > the lineage to have been present in Madgascar before its split from
>> > Gondwana.
>> > At the level of the subgenera that exist in Madagascar, most of them
>> > are shared with Africa, even down to species:
>> >
>> > Nonendemic subgenera: Aganocrossus (1 nonendemic sp); Blackburneus (2
>> > nonendemic sp); Koshantschikovius (4 endemic sp); Paradidactylia (1
>> > endemic sp); Pleuraphodius (1 endemic sp, 1 nonendemic sp);
>> > Pharaphodius (1 nonendemic sp, 2 endemic sp); Pseudopharaphodius (1
>> > nonendemic sp); Labarrus (2 nonendemic sp; 1 tramp; 1 endemic sp);
>> > Mesontoplatys (2 nonendemic sp); Neocalaphodius (1 nonendemic sp);
>> > Nialaphodius (2 nonendemic sp).
>> >
>> > Endemic Malagasy subgenera: Madagaphodius (1 sp); Neoemadiellus (8 sp).
>> >
>> > Bordat, Paulian & Pittino 1990
>> >
>> > The other Aphodiinae tribes have varying degrees of endemicity that
>> > suggest vicariance for some (e.g. Saprosites, Aulonocneminae/i) or
>> > dispersal for others (Rhyparini). I believe the above examples are
>> > sufficient to illustrate the point.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> > On 12 June 2018 at 23:09, Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Jason,
>> > > You write: ''... it seems that we can all more or less agree that
>> > timing is
>> > > the key difference between both mechanisms, and in that context
>> > patterns in
>> > > themselves can´t distinguish either mechanism, so they are not
>> > informative
>> > > in this specific instance and we can dispense with tracks
>> > > and other such pattern searching'.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, you are free to ignore distributions if you like. But here
>> is
>> > > what the author of the most cited bbiogeographic work had to say:
>> > >
>> > > "To do science is to search for repeated patterns, not simply to
>> > accumulate
>> > > facts, and to do the science of geographical ecology is to search for
>> > > patterns of plant and animal life that can be put on a map".
>> (MacArthur,
>> > > 1972: 1).
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:21 AM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Sorry to all for dropping off the map. In particular apologies to Ken
>> > >> for leaving him steadfastly defending the fort on his own. Anyway, it
>> > >> seems that we can all more or less agree that timing is the key
>> > >> difference between both mechanisms, and in that context patterns in
>> > >> themselves can´t distinguish either mechanism, so they are not
>> > >> informative in this specific instance and we can dispense with tracks
>> > >> and other such pattern searching.
>> > >>
>> > >> So when you claim that “... much of the opposition on timing comes
>> > >> from rejection of tectonic correlations that are earlier than the
>> > >> (minimum) molecular estimates.” you are mistaken. The problem is that
>> > >> if the timing is not in agreement with the tectonic evidence then
>> > >> vicariance can no longer be a contender for the time being. This is
>> > >> not a rejection of vicariance but a simple observation that the
>> > >> evidence available just isn´t´t in agreement and dispersal must be
>> > >> considered as likely.
>> > >>
>> > >> Saying that “To me this is about as feeble as it gets with
>> > >> biogeography - that dispersal occurred more than once but left no
>> > >> evidence. But it happened more than once for sure.” is semantic
>> > >> footplay posing as scientific rigour. There are limitations and these
>> > >> have always been acknowledged by molecular taxonomists from the
>> > >> beginning, but not to be used as an underhanded, semantic mallet to
>> > >> clobber dissent. And therein lies the issue I have with you and
>> > >> Michael. Nobody is questioning vicariance, you question dispersal. So
>> > >> really, we only need one example of dispersal to invalidate your
>> > >> epistemological building and that is pushing you to make semantics
>> > >> your arena with such choice examples as “I do not complain about
>> > >> molecular estimates of divergence, I only complain about minimums
>> > >> being misrepresentated as actual or maximal. There is a difference!”
>> > >> or “It only involves the Big Lie about molecular estimates.” Quacks
>> > >> like a duck and all that.
>> > >>
>> > >> You also try to distract the argument by introducing other groups that
>> > >> were not part of the initial discussion. Neither vicariance nor
>> > >> dispersal are on trial here. They are both generally accepted
>> > >> mechanisms (except by you two it seems) and the only question
>> > >> originally posed was, which had a hand in the Platyrrhini, so let´s go
>> > >> back to the Platyrrhini. The available evidence, the research on this
>> > >> topic, is pretty much in agreement with Ken´s assertion. What do you
>> > >> bring to the table to refute this. Claiming that “One can only assert
>> > >> otherwise by the Große Lüge that fossil calibrated molecular estimates
>> > >> are not minimums.” is pure semantics. The burden of proof is with you
>> > >> providing fossil evidence or a new dataset that, when calibrated,
>> > >> contradicts the previous studies.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ken also mentions the Malagasy fauna as having recent elements that
>> > >> precede its split from Gondwana, and he is correct in this regard as
>> > >> well. There are truly ancient lineages that are vicariant but much
>> > >> more recent ones that cannot have arrived by means other than
>> > >> dispersal (e.g. The dung beetle fauna is a combination). That is my
>> > >> bit of evidence. If you can provide counterfactual evidence that can
>> > >> be profitably discussed then that would be great. Semantics not so
>> > >> much.
>> > >>
>> > >> Have a good one.
>> > >>
>> > >> On 11 June 2018 at 05:26, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Hi Ken,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > My comments below.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “ I've been reading a variety of papers on the debate (beginning
>> > about
>> > >> > 2005) between Alan de Queiroz (and others) on the one hand and
>> Michael
>> > >> > Heads (and others, incl. John Grehan) on the other. I have come to
>> > the
>> > >> > conclusion that both sides represent polar opposites in the debate
>> > >> > between
>> > >> > oceanic dispersal and vicariance. The truth is probably somewhere
>> in
>> > >> > between, meaning that both sides are right about some cases, but
>> wrong
>> > >> > in
>> > >> > others. Not at all surprising. “
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > There is no evidence that the ‘truth’ is ‘probably’ somewhere
>> > inbetween.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “ Perhaps the strongest case for a large number of oceanic
>> dispersals
>> > is
>> > >> > probably from the African mainland to Madagascar. “
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > What is the purported evidence?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “but there is apparently evidence that some of those dispersals were
>> > >> > along
>> > >> > island chains that no longer exist.”
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > What is the purported evidence?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “Whether such islands existed or not,”
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Then there is no actual evidence?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “the debate between the two sides seems to be largely centered on
>> > >> > molecular
>> > >> > estimates of divergence (about which Grehan seems to repeatedly
>> > complain
>> > >> > ad
>> > >> > nauseum). “
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > That comes across as a misrepresentation (unintentional I am sure).
>> I
>> > do
>> > >> > not complain about molecular estimates of divergence, I only
>> complain
>> > >> > about
>> > >> > minimums being misrepresentated as actual or maximal. There is a
>> > >> > difference!
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “Therefore, my increasing reluctance to respond to his continued
>> > >> > "baiting".
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ????
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “ If he wants evidence, there is lots of evidence in the literature
>> > from
>> > >> > many authors (many who seem to be somewhat more objective than Alan
>> de
>> > >> > Queiroz). “
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Then state what is the purported evidence. No good just saying so.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “The case for oceanic dispersal from Australia (including Tasmania)
>> > to
>> > >> > New
>> > >> > Zealand is admittedly even more controversial. That controversy not
>> > >> > only
>> > >> > involves molecular estimates of divergence,”
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It only involves the Big Lie about molecular estimates.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “but also whether or not New Zealand was completely submerged at
>> some
>> > >> > time
>> > >> > in the mid Cenozoic.”
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This never had legs to begin with and has been generally buried by
>> > >> > geologists and even orthodox biogeographers.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “ Therefore, I am playing devil's advocate in suggesting how one or
>> > two
>> > >> > species of Nothofagus could have rafted from Tasmania to New Zealand
>> > in
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > middle of the Cenozoic. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but
>> > both
>> > >> > possibilities should be kept in mind. “
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If there is evidence for rafting then sure, consider it.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “Given the long-standing debate between Alan de Queiroz and Michael
>> > >> > Heads,
>> > >> > I find the Nothofagus case the most challenging (even though some
>> > >> > earlier
>> > >> > Nothofagus dispersals seem likely to have been due to vicariance
>> over
>> > >> > land
>> > >> > in Gondwana).”
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Nothofagus is not a ‘Gondwana’ group.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > “Nothofagus distribution could be due to a combination of both
>> > >> > vicariance
>> > >> > and some cases of more recent oceanic dispersal.”
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Or not. But panbiogeography shows clearly that such a combination
>> does
>> > >> > not
>> > >> > have to be invented.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > John Grehan
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Kenneth Kinman <
>> kinman at hotmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Hi all,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I've been reading a variety of papers on the debate
>> (beginning
>> > >> >> about 2005) between Alan de Queiroz (and others) on the one hand
>> and
>> > >> >> Michael Heads (and others, incl. John Grehan) on the other. I have
>> > >> >> come to
>> > >> >> the conclusion that both sides represent polar opposites in the
>> > debate
>> > >> >> between oceanic dispersal and vicariance. The truth is probably
>> > >> >> somewhere
>> > >> >> in between, meaning that both sides are right about some cases, but
>> > >> >> wrong
>> > >> >> in others. Not at all surprising.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Perhaps the strongest case for a large number of oceanic
>> > >> >> dispersals
>> > >> >> is probably from the African mainland to Madagascar. And the case
>> > for
>> > >> >> numerous oceanic dispersals between the African mainland and South
>> > >> >> America
>> > >> >> (when they were closer together) is more controversial, but there
>> is
>> > >> >> apparently evidence that some of those dispersals were along island
>> > >> >> chains
>> > >> >> that no longer exist. Whether such islands existed or not, the
>> > debate
>> > >> >> between the two sides seems to be largely centered on molecular
>> > >> >> estimates
>> > >> >> of divergence (about which Grehan seems to repeatedly complain ad
>> > >> >> nauseum). Therefore, my increasing reluctance to respond to his
>> > >> >> continued
>> > >> >> "baiting". If he wants evidence, there is lots of evidence in the
>> > >> >> literature from many authors (many who seem to be somewhat more
>> > >> >> objective
>> > >> >> than Alan de Queiroz).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> The case for oceanic dispersal from Australia (including
>> > >> >> Tasmania)
>> > >> >> to New Zealand is admittedly even more controversial. That
>> > controversy
>> > >> >> not
>> > >> >> only involves molecular estimates of divergence, but also whether
>> or
>> > >> >> not
>> > >> >> New Zealand was completely submerged at some time in the mid
>> > Cenozoic.
>> > >> >> Therefore, I am playing devil's advocate in suggesting how one or
>> > two
>> > >> >> species of Nothofagus could have rafted from Tasmania to New
>> Zealand
>> > in
>> > >> >> the
>> > >> >> middle of the Cenozoic. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but
>> > both
>> > >> >> possibilities should be kept in mind. Given the long-standing
>> debate
>> > >> >> between Alan de Queiroz and Michael Heads, I find the Nothofagus
>> case
>> > >> >> the
>> > >> >> most challenging (even though some earlier Nothofagus dispersals
>> seem
>> > >> >> likely to have been due to vicariance over land in Gondwana).
>> > >> >> Nothofagus
>> > >> >> distribution could be due to a combination of both vicariance and
>> > some
>> > >> >> cases of more recent oceanic dispersal.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> ------------------Ken
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list