[Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu May 31 17:53:06 CDT 2018 

We need to be careful to distinguish between "subjective" and "arbitrary". There is an important sense in which taxonomic classification is not merely "subjective" (i.e. it does, all going well, capture some objective facts about the biological world), but the circumscription of taxa above the species level is nevertheless partly arbitrary (i.e. more or less inclusive monophyla). The case of Nothofagus illustrates this point. There was, IMHO, insufficient reason to make Nothofagus less inclusive than the already widely accepted and used circumscription.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/6/18, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
 To: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 10:40 AM
 
 But it did not seem to me to be a
 scientific theory to define a species in
 a
 certain way.
 
 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 Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:36
 PM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
 wrote:
 
 >
 No. You can’t derogate scientific theory as
 “subjective.” That is like
 >
 postmoderns saying science is nonsense because Einstein
 proved all things
 > are relative and
 Heisenberg proved all things are uncertain, and
 scientific
 > papers are just snips of
 other people’s papers stuck together in different
 > ways.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 -------
 >
 > Richard H.
 Zander
 >
 > Missouri
 Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis –
 Missouri –
 > 63110 – USA
 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=4344+Shaw+Blvd.+%E2%80%93+St.+Louis+%E2%80%93+Missouri+%E2%80%93+63110+%E2%80%93+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
 >
 > richard.zander at mobot.org
 >
 > Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
 and
 > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
 >
 >
 >
 > *From:* John Grehan
 [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
 > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:54 AM
 > *To:* Richard Zander
 >
 *Cc:* Lynn Raw; taxacom
 >
 > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] What is Homo
 sapiens
 >
 >
 >
 > This is another
 subjective criterion. If it works from a personal
 > perspective is can be subject to
 subjective critique. It does not matter
 >
 whether all hominid speciation need be dichotomous or
 not.
 >
 >
 >
 > John Grehan
 >
 >
 >
 > On Wed, May 30, 2018
 at 10:50 AM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
 > wrote:
 >
 > Gaps are okay, I suppose.
 >
 > But what about
 defining a genus as a center of radiation? Of adaptive
 > and/or nearly neutral radiation? Thus, one
 might look for a central
 > generalist
 species from which other hominid species diverged through
 some
 > kind of at least occasionally
 multichotomous radiation. That is, must all
 > hominid speciation be dichotomous from an
 unknown ancestor?
 >
 >
 > -------
 > Richard H. Zander
 >
 Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis
 – Missouri –
 > 63110 – USA
 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=4344+Shaw+Blvd.+%E2%80%93+St.+Louis+%E2%80%93+Missouri+%E2%80%93+63110+%E2%80%93+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
 >
 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
 > John Grehan
 > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:26 AM
 > To: Lynn Raw
 > Cc:
 taxacom
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What is
 Homo sapiens
 >
 >
 Lynn,
 >
 > This is
 criterion, like all others, is arbitrary. Of course if
 anyone
 > finds it useful to use that
 choice is personal and therefore beyond
 >
 objective criticism (but that does not preclude subjective
 criticism).
 >
 > John
 Grehan
 >
 > On Wed, May
 30, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org>
 wrote:
 >
 > >
 John,
 > >
 > >
 Ernst Mayr's 1969 definition in Priciples of Systematic
 Zoology, p.
 > > 92, seems pretty
 logical, especially his recommendation regarding the
 > > size of the gap being in inverse
 ratio to the size of the taxon.
 > >
 > > Lynn
 > >
 > > Sent from my iPad
 > >
 > > > On 30
 May 2018, at 16:01, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 > > >
 >
 > > Ken's observation makes the point that the
 breadth of a genus and
 > > > higher
 category is entirely arbitrary and irrational.
 > > >
 > > >
 John Grehan
 > > >
 > > >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:39
 AM, Kenneth Kinman
 > > >> <kinman at hotmail.com>
 > > wrote:
 > >
 >>
 > > >> Dear All,
 > > >>
 > >
 >>      In the conclusions, he says: "By
 logical extension,
 > > >>
 hypothetical neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis clades,
 > > >> regardless of their
 relationship to a sapiens clade, should be
 > regarded as separate genera."
 > > >>
 > >
 >>
 > > >>      I do not
 agree with that at all.  This is another example of
 > > >> the oversplitting that many
 anthropologists have long practiced,
 >
 > >> and it
 > > should
 > > >> be discouraged, not
 encouraged.
 > > >>
 > > >>               
 --------------Ken
 > > >>
 > > >>
 ------------------------------
 > >
 >> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 on behalf of
 > > >> John Grehan
 <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 > > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30,
 2018 7:59 AM
 > > >> *To:*
 taxacom
 > > >> *Subject:*
 [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
 > >
 >>
 > > >> For anyone
 interested in such questions, see article at
 > > >>
 > >
 >>
 http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2016vol94/Schwartz/26963221.
 > > >> pdf
 >
 > >>
 > > >>
 > > >> Abstract below
 > > >>
 > >
 >> What constitutes Homo sapiens? Morphology versus
 received wisdom
 > > >>
 > > >> Although Linnaeus coined
 Homo sapiens in 1735, it was Blumenbach
 >
 > >> forty years later who provided the first
 morphological definition
 > > >>
 of the
 > > species.
 > > >> Since humans were not then
 allowed to be ante-Diluvian, his effort
 >
 > applied
 > > >> to the
 genus, as well. After the Feldhofer Grotto Neanderthal
 > > >> disproved this creationist
 notion, and human–fossil hunting became
 > > >> legitimate, new specimens
 were allocated either to sapiens or new
 >
 > >> species within Homo,
 > >
 or
 > > >> even to new species
 within new genera. Yet as these taxonomic acts
 > > >> reflected the morphological
 differences between specimens, they
 >
 > >> failed
 > > to
 > > >> address the question: What
 constitutes H. sapiens? When in 1950
 >
 > >> Mayr collapsed all human fossils into Homo, he
 not only denied
 > > >> humans
 a
 > > diverse
 >
 > >> evolutionary past, he also shifted the key to
 identifying its
 > > >>
 species
 > > from
 >
 > >> morphology to geological age – a practice
 most paleoanthropologists
 > > still
 > > >> follow. Thus, for example,
 H. erectus is the species that preceded H.
 > > >> sapiens, and H. sapiens is
 the species into which H. erectus
 > >
 >> morphed. In order to deal with a growing morass of
 morphologically
 > > >>
 dissimilar specimens, the non-taxonomic terms “archaic”
 (AS) and
 > > >>
 “anatomically
 > > modern”
 > > >> (AMS) were introduced to
 distinguish between the earlier and later
 > > versions
 > >
 >> of H. sapiens, thereby making the species
 impossible to define. In
 > > >>
 attempting to disentangle fact from scenario, I begin from
 the
 > > beginning,
 > > >> trying to delineate features
 that may be distinctive of extant
 > >
 >> humans
 > > (ES),
 > > >> and then turning to the
 fossils that have been included in the
 >
 species.
 > > >> With the
 exception of Upper Paleolithic humans – e.g. from
 > > >> Cro-Magnon, Dolni Vestonice,
 Mladeč – I argue that many specimens
 >
 > >> regarded as AMS,
 > >
 and
 > > >> all those deemed AS,
 are not H. sapiens. The features these AMS do
 > > >> share with ES suggest the
 existence of a sapiens clade. Further,
 >
 > >> restudy of near-recent fossils, especially
 from southwestern China
 > > >>
 (~11-14.5 ka), reinforces what discoveries such as H.
 floresiensis
 > > >> indicate:
 “If it’s recent, it’s not necessarily H.
 sapiens”.
 > > >>
 _______________________________________________
 > > >> 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.
 >
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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