[Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu May 31 18:16:12 CDT 2018
"but I will continue to recognize Nothofagus as a genus in my biogeographic works"
You need to be careful now though. Heenan & Smissen do recognise a genus Nothofagus, but it is endemic to S America and corresponds to the subgenus Nothofagus of wide usage. They have thus created great potential for confusion!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/6/18, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 11:06 AM
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
Virus-free. www.avast.com
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@
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