[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 23

[Brendon E. Boudinot]

Dear John,



It looks like I missed a few messages. Here are some responses, in sequence
from the Taxacom digest:



"While taking an idle break from ghost moths, I came across Blaimer et al
2015 on ant phylogeny. Don't know how that is viewed currently (can you
clarify?), but one of their lineages Melophorini has (according to
antweb.org) an Australia-NZ range (just one genus in NZ) with marginal
presence in SE New Guinea, and also a subclade with a sister group
relationship between Notostigma in E Australia (with a break at
MacPhearson-McLeay) and Lasophanes in southern Chile/Argentina. Is this
still considered valid?"



This is the best phylogeny of the Formicinae that we have to date. The
Melophorini are fascinating because in the previous best classification,
they were distributed among various other tribes, with no hint that they
formed a clade. I would be careful about the internal topology of the
group, as some nodes remain unstable and may best be resolved with deeper
taxon sampling. However, that *Lasiophanes *is the sole South American
representative of the group is certainly valid. In that *Syst. Ent.
Leptomyrmex *paper, the overarching pattern of ant distribution between
South America and Australia is discussed. Remarkably, *Lasiophanes *would
be the only genus that may have dispersed from Australia to South
America—and it is a cold-adapted clade. All other known instances of
apparent interchange among these continents are for warm-adapted clades
from South America to Australia, including *Leptomyrmex *itself. To date no
comprehensive study of Austral ant distributions has been made, although
this should be possible once the Ants of the World phylogenomics group have
completed their pass through the ant phylogeny. I am still struck by the
asymmetry of EW, WE patterns in Austral ants.



"I have no time right now to check on the distribution range of the
Melophorini sister group which is quite large. Might get to that a bit
later. Interesting to look at ants. Not done that before (please bear with
my ignorance on ant systematics) as NZ ant diversity was rather limited,
but I did enjoy documenting a new location for an ant nest-inhabiting
lucanid as one of my first ever publications.”



Indeed! The sistergroup of the Melophorini is the rest of the formicoform
radiation, which comprises the vast majority of formicine species. The
other clades (Myrmelachistini and Lasiini) are heterogeneous in terms of
morphological derivation, but they do approximate the “groundplan” of the
subfamily as roughly represented by the Cretaceous (New Jersey) fossil †
*Kyromyrma*. In a forthcoming study (also in *Syst. Ent.*) Marek Borowiec,
Matt Prebus, and I allow fossils to be unconstrained and dated terminals in
the phylogeny of the Formicinae, and †*Kyromyrma *is either recovered as a
crown group member of Lasiini or crown group member of the Formicinae, but
near the base of the tree. The study is on BioRxiv as an early version, but
the text has been improved in the *in press* copy. Anyway, I expect that
you will find the biogeographic interpretations of this study to be of
interest.



Hi Brendon,



“Out of general curiosity, how well documented are ant distributions in
general? For example, antweb.org shows a distribution for Stereomyrmex
where there are records in Sri Lanka, then nothing until northwestern
Australia and another record off Rennell Island in the western Pacific. Is
this disjunction real or is it an artifact for an ant group that is easily
overlooked (since many other ant genera are documented for the S E Asia
'gap'.”



The briefest answer is: Quite well, but imperfectly so. There is regional
bias in the completeness of sampling, and there is a constant flow of new
records being published. However, the general patterns of ant biodiversity
are well established and have also been tested for all subfamilies using
10-locus phylogenies, and increasingly by genome-scale UCE studies. These
works, by the way, encompass a great range of morphological and
biogeographic diversity. The Ant Tree of Life project (Sanger sequencing)
was definitely a success.



Regarding databases of ant distributions, you might enjoy perusing AntMaps.
The records in AntWeb are based solely on specimen-based records (all
specimens in AntWeb are databased and provided with unique specimen
identifiers). In contrast, the AntMaps group have hoovered up a tremendous
amount of literature and digested that into range maps at the subfamily to
species level. The primary caveat for AntMaps is that it is difficult to
vet all of the records, as many vouchers are in small collections or have
otherwise not been reevaluated by taxonomic experts, of which fortunately
there are many.



“Ant biogeography looks really interesting. Wish I had more time for it.”



Agreed! The geographical and evolutionary history of ants is rich, with
~800 valid species known from the fossil record (there are almost 14,000
valid, extant species). Reevaluation of the fossil record is one of the key
tasks facing myrmecologists, as a number of these fossils are described
from inadequately preserved specimens or are attributed to over-broadly
conceived taxa, for example. Forthcoming is a pair of studies by my
colleagues and I in which we use µ-CT scans to reconstruct the soft tissue
anatomy of Cretaceous fossil ants, including the central nervous system;
the potential for ant phylogeny is awe-inspiring.



Dear John,



"This is biogeographically a Pacific centered distribution and is more
consistent with an ancestral range that spanned the Pacific rather than
across Gondwana, other than peripherally (the Asian range may be associated
with the former Tethy for example)."



For further clarification, you are hypothesizing that the most recent
common ancestor of Syscia had a distribution that spanned the Indomalayan
and Neotropical regions, with some subsequent mechanism leading to
allopatric speciation of the surviving populations—is this correct?



**Yes, in part, but that the ancestral range also spanned the Pacific
rather than core Gondwana (based on the present evidence)**



Thank you. Out of curiosity, how old would you infer *Syscia *to be if it
were to have had such an ancestral distribution? Also, what would you
predict the phylogenetic pattern for *Syscia *to be? Would the clade be
split evenly between E and W species groups, would there be asymmetry, and
what about the rate of molecular evolution among the various lineages? To
reiterate, I ask this non-combatively, but in the spirit of discussion.



"Longino & Branstetter assert that "The Asian and American species are
estimated to have diverged ~20 million years ago (Ma) (Borowiec 2019)." But
this is incorrect since Boroweic's estimate used fossil calibration so the
divergence age can only be said to be AT LEAST 20 Ma."



Note that the authors did not misrepresent the estimate in their phrasing,
as "~20 Ma" is the approximate mean of the 95% highest probability density
of Borowiec (2019). The HPD from this study for the Syscia crown node spans
~28–13 Ma, based on the model of molecular evolution, the minimum age
calibrations, and the genomic sampling of the Dorylinae. If one were to
make an "at least" statement, one would state "Syscia may be at least 13
million years old".



**Sure – that's the point. Any extrapolated fossil calibrated age is a
minimum. One can create probability curves, but the age is still a minimum,
whether 28 or 13, or anything else.**



Neither of us disagree that we are effectively talking about minimum ages,
and that the couching of statements is important. In the specific case
cited, the authors did address their estimates from the statistical point
of view; whether the specific phrasing could be altered is another subject.



Speaking of another subject, what would the motivation be for accepting the
older versus younger interpretations of posterior age distributions? Given
the debate in the plant world, I am uncomfortable accepting the
molecular-only folks who argue for a Paleozoic origin of the crown
angiosperms based on mean or broadest HPD ranges. The fossil record of
crown angiosperms is better than that of ants and shows a nice transition
in the Cretaceous from stem to crown Angiospermae, and to crown eudicots.



"Longino & Branstetter say "We save detailed analysis of biogeographic
patterns for later investigation, but note that the New World Syscia clade
appears to have originated and diversified in the Middle American corridor,
with perhaps two incursions into South America and one into the Caribbean"
but they did not say how they reached that conclusion."



It will be great to see the expanded sampling of the forthcoming doryline
phylogenomic study.



**Agreed**



Indeed! It may take several years for the Ants of the World group to
process the crown Formicidae, but it will be highly interesting.



Cheers,

Brendon

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:05 PM <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. More on ants (John Grehan)
>    2. Steriomyrmex distribution (John Grehan)
>    3. Re: Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22 (Brendon E. Boudinot)
>    4. Re: Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22 (John Grehan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:36:19 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] More on ants
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADN0ud3cySvVC08FG7CCVp4o+86K5pRQbDPMDdoO-V0md7VUZQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Brendon,
>
> While taking an idle break from ghost moths, I came across Blaimer et al
> 2015 on ant phylogeny. Don't know how that is viewed currently (can you
> clarify?), but one of their lineages Melophorini has (according to
> antweb.org) an Australia-NZ range (just one genus in NZ) with marginal
> presence in SE New Guinea, and also a subclade with a sister group
> relationship between Notostigma in E Australia (with a break at
> MacPhearson-McLeay) and Lasophanes in southern Chile/Argentina. Is this
> still considered valid? I have no time right now to check on the
> distribution range of the Melophorini sister group which is quite large.
> Might get to that a bit later. Interesting to look at ants. Not done that
> before (please bear with my ignorance on ant systematics) as NZ ant
> diversity was rather limited, but I did enjoy documenting a new location
> for an ant nest-inhabiting lucanid as one of my first ever publications.
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:54:41 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Steriomyrmex distribution
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADN0ud00WUzkM4L8M99-p8c7bof6_vYByGh7Hqsu+ZtAcUM_AA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Brendon,
>
> Out of general curiosity, how well documented are ant distributions in
> general? For example, antweb.org shows a distribution for
> Stereomyrmex where there are records in Sri Lanka, then nothing until
> northwestern Australia and another record off Rennell Island in the western
> Pacific. Is this disjunction real or is it an artifact for an ant group
> that is easily overlooked (since many other ant genera are documented for
> the S E Asia 'gap'.
>
> Ant biogeography looks really interesting. Wish I had more time for it.
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:48:13 +0200
> From: "Brendon E. Boudinot" <boudinotb at gmail.com>
> To: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22
> Message-ID:
>         <CACoQQ2zHP+OwfhL=gnWC0ZuHbn47PT4iJwT4B-4b=
> FG0FobJcA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Dear John,
>
> Would you please clarify the hypothesis that you are proposing? If I
> understood you correctly, you are hypothesizing that the most recent common
> ancestor of the crown group of the genus *Syscia* was distributed across
> Gondwana, and that subsequent rifting, *etc.*, led to the
> presently observed distribution of the clade? If this is not correct,
> please do outline the scenario.
>
> Cheers,
> Brendon
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:05 PM <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> > your reply.
> > ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Syscia ant biogeography (John Grehan)
> >    2. Re: Author surname Clark or James-Clark? (Henry James     Clark)
> >       (Tony Rees)
> >    3. Taxonomic impediment (John Grehan)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:26:38 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Syscia ant biogeography
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CADN0ud29+OUoAOVqjtm0qC+t-dqxiNtxJR6GVyBwsVw+8-Hd7w at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hi Brendon,
> >
> > While some recent conceptual discussion is interesting, some may feel
> more
> > at home with specific instances and in this respect I was interested to
> see
> > the distribution of Syscia which I understand to be distributed in the
> New
> > World from southern US to Colombia and including the Caribbean, and in
> > Thailand - Japan - Sri Lanka (and apparently other unnamed species in the
> > region). As a geographic range, I am sure you will appreciate its
> contrast
> > to Leptomyrmex. As a range, Syscia is painfully obvious as a classic
> > Pacific centered range extending to the Indian subcontinent as the only
> > core Gondwana region. Syscia could indeed represent a Pacific group (i.e.
> > its ancestral range spanned what is now the Pacific), or it could be a
> > Gondwanic group that has become extinct across Africa/Madagascar, as well
> > as much of South America, not to mention other places. But it is
> > interesting that Longino & Branstetter 2020 place a Sri Lankan and
> > Malaysian species (each) within a Mexico-Costa Rica subclade. It would
> also
> > be interesting to know the sister genus and its distribution. Can you
> offer
> > any enlightenment on that?
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 05:30:37 +1000
> > From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> > To: Valery MALECOT <valery.malecot at agrocampus-ouest.fr>,  taxacom
> >         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Andy Mabbett <
> > andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Author surname Clark or James-Clark? (Henry
> >         James   Clark)
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CABEjCKN4koPXoCTiwmO9zP8OUWi1NSH-Km7_cQyPmHtLqChUTg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > An "Aha!" moment perhaps... Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix
> > proteiformis (species), both published in the sole work listed above that
> > is under the authorship "Henry James Clark" (thus previously suggested by
> > me to be treated as "Clark") are listed as "Heteromastix, Jas.-Clk." and
> > "Heteromastix proteiformis, Jas.-Clk." by the author himself, in
> > publication [5]. Thus, I feel that this justifies citing the authorship
> of
> > all taxa by the author in question as James-Clark. Thoughts? Regards -
> Tony
> > Rees
> >
> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> > https://about.me/TonyRees
> > www.irmng.org
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:05:15 -0400
> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomic impediment
> > Message-ID:
> >         <CADN0ud0QmMv8LYHq3k5MpiQrNyx4GyY-qGU24aBO=
> > Uwywc9Q2g at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Maybe someone posted about this already, I am not sure, so apologies in
> > advance:  Engel et al 2021 "The taxonomic impediment: a shortage of
> > taxonomists, not the lack of technical approaches" Zoological Journal of
> > the Linnean Society, 2021, 193, 381–387.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22
> > ****************************************
> >
>
>
> --
> Dr. Brendon E. Boudinot
> Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow
> Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
> Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung
> Erbertstraße 1
> 07443 Jena DE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:12:39 -0400
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> To: "Brendon E. Boudinot" <boudinotb at gmail.com>, taxacom
>         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22
> Message-ID:
>         <CADN0ud3hJ008=0X+QXC4gVn1ab282JF3AJGb9rjcAmUYMrP2=
> w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> looks like I did not send my earlier email to Taxacom as intended. Anyway,
> below:
>
> Brendon E. Boudinot
>
> 11:00 AM (2 minutes ago)
>
> to me
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> "This is biogeographically a Pacific centered distribution and is more
> consistent with an ancestral range that spanned the Pacific rather than
> across Gondwana, other than peripherally (the Asian range may be associated
> with the former Tethy for example)."
>
> For further clarification, you are hypothesizing that the most recent
> common ancestor of Syscia had a distribution that spanned the Indomalayan
> and Neotropical regions, with some subsequent mechanism leading to
> allopatric speciation of the surviving populations—is this correct?
>
> *Yes, in part, but that the ancestral range also spanned the Pacific rather
> than core Gondwana (based on the present evidence)*
>
> "Longino & Branstetter assert that "The Asian and American species are
> estimated to have diverged ~20 million years ago (Ma) (Borowiec 2019)." but
> this is incorrect since Boroweic's estimate used fossil calibration so the
> divergence age can only be said to be AT LEAST 20 Ma."
>
> Note that the authors did not misrepresent the estimate in their phrasing,
> as "~20 Ma" is the approximate mean of the 95% highest probability density
> of Borowiec (2019). The HPD from this study for the Syscia crown node spans
> ~28–13 Ma, based on the model of molecular evolution, the minimum age
> calibrations, and the genomic sampling of the Dorylinae. If one were to
> make an "at least" statement, one would state "Syscia may be at least 13
> million years old".
>
> *Sure – that's the point. Any extrapolated fossil calibrated age is a
> minimum. One can create probability curves, but the age is still a minimum,
> whether 28 or 13, or anything else.*
>
> "Longino & Branstetter say "We save detailed analysis of biogeographic
> patterns for later investigation, but note that the New World Syscia clade
> appears to have originated and diversified in the Middle American corridor,
> with perhaps two incursions into South America and one into the Caribbean"
> but they did not say how they reached that conclusion."
>
> It will be great to see the expanded sampling of the forthcoming doryline
> phylogenomic study.
>
> *Agreed*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:00 AM Brendon E. Boudinot <boudinotb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear John,
> >
> > "This is biogeographically a Pacific centered distribution and is more
> > consistent with an ancestral range that spanned the Pacific rather than
> > across Gondwana, other than peripherally (the Asian range may be
> associated
> > with the former Tehtys for example)."
> >
> > For further clarification, you are hypothesizing that the most recent
> > common ancestor of *Syscia *had a distribution that spanned the
> > Indomalayan and Neotropical regions, with some subsequent mechanism
> leading
> > to allopatric speciation of the surviving populations—is this correct?
> >
> > "Longino & Branstetter assert that "The Asian and American species are
> > estimated to have diverged ~20 million years ago (Ma) (Borowiec 2019)."
> but
> > this is incorrect since Boroweic's estimate used fossil calibration so
> the
> > divergence age can only be said to be AT LEAST 20 Ma."
> >
> > Note that the authors did not misrepresent the estimate in their
> phrasing,
> > as "~20 Ma" is the approximate mean of the 95% highest probability
> density
> > of Borowiec (2019). The HPD from this study for the *Syscia *crown
> > node spans ~28–13 Ma, based on the model of molecular evolution, the
> > minimum age calibrations, and the genomic sampling of the Dorylinae. If
> one
> > were to make an "at least" statement, one would state "*Syscia *may be at
> > least 13 million years old".
> >
> > "Longino & Branstetter say "We save detailed analysis of biogeographic
> > patterns for later investigation, but note that the New World Syscia
> clade
> > appears to have originated and diversified in the Middle American
> corridor,
> > with perhaps two incursions into South America and one into the
> Caribbean"
> > but they did not say how they reached that conclusion."
> >
> > It will be great to see the expanded sampling of the forthcoming doryline
> > phylogenomic study.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Brendon
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:42 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brendon,
> >>
> >> "..understood you correctly, you are hypothesizing that the most recent
> >> common
> >> ancestor of the crown group of the genus *Syscia* was distributed across
> >> Gondwana, and that subsequent rifting, *etc.*, led to the presently
> >> observed distribution of the clade?"
> >>
> >> Since the group is absent from major parts of Gondwana (e.g Africa,
> >> Australia) the distribution does not really fit all that well. Instead
> >> (going by antweb) there is a southeast Asian-Japan-Sri Lanka range (only
> >> hitting core Gondwana with Sri Lanka) and then the New World (with a
> >> concentration of records in C America - don't know if that is just
> >> concentration of locality records or species diversity). This is
> >> biogeographically a Pacific centered distribution and is more consistent
> >> with an ancestral range that spanned the Pacific rather than across
> >> Gondwana, other than peripherally (the Asian range may be associated
> with
> >> the former Tehtys for example). It is a distribution pattern encountered
> >> with numerous other animal and plant taxa (which is really a key point).
> >> The Pacific disjunction would be consistent with ancestral vicariance
> >> through formation of the Pacific plate dislocating former Large Igneous
> >> Provinces and associated terrestrial outcrops (large or small islands,
> or
> >> island archipelagos. Antweb shows the range in America extending well
> into
> >> southern Peru and Brazil. Is that accurate information?
> >>
> >> Longino & Branstetter assert that "The Asian and American species are
> >> estimated to have diverged ~20 million years ago (Ma) (Borowiec 2019)."
> but
> >> this is incorrect since Boroweic's estimate used fossil calibration so
> the
> >> divergence age can only be said to be AT LEAST 20 Ma.
> >>
> >> Longino & Branstetter say "We save detailed analysis of biogeographic
> >> patterns for later investigation, but note that the New World Syscia
> >> clade appears to have originated and diversified in the Middle American
> >> corridor, with perhaps two incursions into South America and one into
> >> the Caribbean" but they did not say how they reached that conclusion.
> >>
> >> Interested to know if you have any data that preclude the Pacific
> >> possibility. Also interested in your feedback on that SEA disjunction
> >> recently posted.
> >>
> >> Cheers, John
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:49 AM Brendon E. Boudinot via Taxacom <
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear John,
> >>>
> >>> Would you please clarify the hypothesis that you are proposing? If I
> >>> understood you correctly, you are hypothesizing that the most recent
> >>> common
> >>> ancestor of the crown group of the genus *Syscia* was distributed
> across
> >>> Gondwana, and that subsequent rifting, *etc.*, led to the
> >>> presently observed distribution of the clade? If this is not correct,
> >>> please do outline the scenario.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Brendon
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:05 PM <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
> >>> >
> >>> > When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest
> into
> >>> > your reply.
> >>> > ____________________________________
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Today's Topics:
> >>> >
> >>> >    1. Syscia ant biogeography (John Grehan)
> >>> >    2. Re: Author surname Clark or James-Clark? (Henry James
>  Clark)
> >>> >       (Tony Rees)
> >>> >    3. Taxonomic impediment (John Grehan)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > Message: 1
> >>> > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 14:26:38 -0400
> >>> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >>> > Subject: [Taxacom] Syscia ant biogeography
> >>> > Message-ID:
> >>> >         <
> >>> > CADN0ud29+OUoAOVqjtm0qC+t-dqxiNtxJR6GVyBwsVw+8-Hd7w at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Brendon,
> >>> >
> >>> > While some recent conceptual discussion is interesting, some may feel
> >>> more
> >>> > at home with specific instances and in this respect I was interested
> >>> to see
> >>> > the distribution of Syscia which I understand to be distributed in
> the
> >>> New
> >>> > World from southern US to Colombia and including the Caribbean, and
> in
> >>> > Thailand - Japan - Sri Lanka (and apparently other unnamed species in
> >>> the
> >>> > region). As a geographic range, I am sure you will appreciate its
> >>> contrast
> >>> > to Leptomyrmex. As a range, Syscia is painfully obvious as a classic
> >>> > Pacific centered range extending to the Indian subcontinent as the
> only
> >>> > core Gondwana region. Syscia could indeed represent a Pacific group
> >>> (i.e.
> >>> > its ancestral range spanned what is now the Pacific), or it could be
> a
> >>> > Gondwanic group that has become extinct across Africa/Madagascar, as
> >>> well
> >>> > as much of South America, not to mention other places. But it is
> >>> > interesting that Longino & Branstetter 2020 place a Sri Lankan and
> >>> > Malaysian species (each) within a Mexico-Costa Rica subclade. It
> would
> >>> also
> >>> > be interesting to know the sister genus and its distribution. Can you
> >>> offer
> >>> > any enlightenment on that?
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers, John
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > Message: 2
> >>> > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 05:30:37 +1000
> >>> > From: Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> >>> > To: Valery MALECOT <valery.malecot at agrocampus-ouest.fr>,  taxacom
> >>> >         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Andy Mabbett <
> >>> > andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> >>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Author surname Clark or James-Clark? (Henry
> >>> >         James   Clark)
> >>> > Message-ID:
> >>> >         <
> >>> > CABEjCKN4koPXoCTiwmO9zP8OUWi1NSH-Km7_cQyPmHtLqChUTg at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >>> >
> >>> > An "Aha!" moment perhaps... Heteromastix (genus) and Heteromastix
> >>> > proteiformis (species), both published in the sole work listed above
> >>> that
> >>> > is under the authorship "Henry James Clark" (thus previously
> suggested
> >>> by
> >>> > me to be treated as "Clark") are listed as "Heteromastix, Jas.-Clk."
> >>> and
> >>> > "Heteromastix proteiformis, Jas.-Clk." by the author himself, in
> >>> > publication [5]. Thus, I feel that this justifies citing the
> >>> authorship of
> >>> > all taxa by the author in question as James-Clark. Thoughts? Regards
> -
> >>> Tony
> >>> > Rees
> >>> >
> >>> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >>> > https://about.me/TonyRees
> >>> > www.irmng.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > Message: 3
> >>> > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:05:15 -0400
> >>> > From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >>> > To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >>> > Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomic impediment
> >>> > Message-ID:
> >>> >         <CADN0ud0QmMv8LYHq3k5MpiQrNyx4GyY-qGU24aBO=
> >>> > Uwywc9Q2g at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >>> >
> >>> > Maybe someone posted about this already, I am not sure, so apologies
> in
> >>> > advance:  Engel et al 2021 "The taxonomic impediment: a shortage of
> >>> > taxonomists, not the lack of technical approaches" Zoological Journal
> >>> of
> >>> > the Linnean Society, 2021, 193, 381–387.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >>> >
> >>> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >>> >
> >>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> >>> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >>> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>> >
> >>> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> >>> 1987-2021.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 22
> >>> > ****************************************
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dr. Brendon E. Boudinot
> >>> Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow
> >>> Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
> >>> Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung
> >>> Erbertstraße 1
> >>> 07443 Jena DE
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>>
> >>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> >>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>>
> >>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Brendon E. Boudinot
> > Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow
> > Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
> > Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung
> > Erbertstraße 1
> > 07443 Jena DE
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 185, Issue 23
> ****************************************
>


-- 
Dr. Brendon E. Boudinot
Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung
Erbertstraße 1
07443 Jena DE