[Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sun Jan 30 16:25:19 CST 2011


Nearest neighbor random sphere packing is 9.3. This is a good match for the number of species in a genus! And it is scientific! (I read this from a slip of paper on my desk kept just for creative emergencies like this thread.)

P. Stevens is on the right track that we might more profitably ascribe the magic number (in many cases) (what did we decide, 7? 8?) to intent (reflecting a personal limit or preference, maybe) than to some fundamental number in nature associated with the genus concept. 

Wait a minute! 8 is 2 to the 3rd power! And it is the second digit to the right of the decimal in the golden ratio (if you round off). Maybe we are on to something here?

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: Weakley, Alan S [mailto:weakley at bio.unc.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Richard Zander; Thomas Pape; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline

Richard's point is a good one.  Though the cognitive "limit" of 7 or 5 or 17 or whatever (but not 2000) IS important.  In the giant genera (like Carex), some taxonomic rank below the genus (like section) becomes the real unit of currency above the species level, and the experts tend to specialize on 1 or a few sections, not the genus as a whole.

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Zander
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Thomas Pape; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline

The average is misleading. I've seen a publication a while back demonstrating that the number of species per genus in botany is a distributional curve, with lots of monotypic or bitypic genera and a few huge genera with lots of species, and a spectrum of genera with various numbers of species. I doubt that the human ability to sort by 7's is relevant. (Sevens? Five is the limit for me.)


* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Pape
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:44 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pop article on taxonomy's decline

>>> So, either the vascular plants are much more speciose per genus than other organisms, or my average of 8 is a gross underestimate [...] it would be interesting to see some figures for other groups, particularly major insect groups ...

The issue of 'how many species per genus' is perhaps more a psychological or cognitive issue in so far as genera are man-made constructs. Eight is (today) the number of bits in a byte. Eight is the lucky number in many cultures. Even more compelling, perhaps, is that the human mind on average has the capacity to operate simultaneously with seven words, concepts, sounds or the like (***Miller 1956). So, perhaps the human mind has an innate urge to break up genera when they exceed that number?
When Roger Crosskey (1980) edited the Afrotropical Diptera catalogue, he made this interesting observation on the number of species per genus:
Afrotropical:	8.12 (16,318 spp. in 2,009 genera)
Oriental:		8.51 (15,694 spp. in 1,876 genera)
Nearctic:		8.18 (16,130 spp. in 1,971 genera)
However, if calculated from what we currently have in Systema Dipterorum (www.diptera.org), the figure is slightly above 13 species/genus.
/Thomas Pape, Natural History Museum of Denmark ***Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review 63: 81-87.
_______________________________________________

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