[Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu May 31 18:06:41 CDT 2018
I like the emphasis on arbitrary. Perhaps that better describes what I
think I was getting at.
Not that I know the ins and outs of the issue, but I will continue to
recognize Nothofagus as a genus in my biogeographic works. Its still a
monophyletic entity as far as I know (or has that changed?)
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 Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> 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