[Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu May 31 18:25:17 CDT 2018
As far as I am currently concerned, restricting Nothofagus to a S American
endemic is less than necessary. Perhaps it is Heenan & Smissen who need to
be careful :)
<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 7:16 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> "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