[Taxacom] I got them Nabokov Blues

Jason Mate jfmate at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 26 13:43:29 CST 2011


It is difficult to work out from the article what they did. Assuming that they thoroughly sampled each of the groups that Nabokov considered a monophyletic "wave", and assuming that each group did indeed resolve as sister to a Palearctic and not Nearctic taxon (congruence), then it would be a pretty strong result, regardless of what we may or may not consider a test. What I found annoying is Dr Pierce´s quote:
 "...began looking closely at Nabokov’s work while preparing an exhibit to 
celebrate his 100th birthday in 1999. She was captivated by his idea of 
butterflies coming from Asia. “It was an amazing, bold hypothesis,” she 
said. “And I thought, ‘Oh, my God, we could test this.’ ” 

Maybe butterflies don´t do it but lineages crossing the Bering Strait either way and diversifying is not an amazing, bold hypothesis. But hey, the press embelishes.

Jason

> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:59:40 -0800
> From: kfitzhugh at nhm.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I got them Nabokov Blues
> 
> Based just on Zimmer's article, Pierce et al. didn't perform any valid 
> test of Nabokov's hypothesis. Rather, Pierce et al. inferred a 
> hypothesis explaining a set of sequence data, whereas Nabokov's 
> hypothesis explains certain anatomical data. All we're presented with 
> are two separate explanations (Nabokov's and Pierce et al., assuming 
> Pierce et al. made no attempt to integrate all relevant data), not a 
> test of any one hypothesis.
> 
> Kirk
> -- 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research&  Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/25/2011 8:21 PM, Barry Roth wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01butterfly.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all
> >   
> > Swing away, ladies and gents, at the approaches and assumptions underlying the original hypothesis and the interview comments by those who tested it.  I merely muse on the assist that having a taxonomist who is highly celebrated for his accomplishments in another field probably gave to the type size of the headline here.
> >   
> > Barry Roth
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list