[Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 06:37:07 CST 2013


Ken,

In my view a paper does not have to be a monograph to warrant maps. There
can be great biogeographic information even in a paper of this kind.
Perhaps its 'an axe to grind' but still, I think its a good axe - that many
taxonomic and systematic papers would be greatly enhanced by including
maps. As for 'venting' my frustration, why not? You feel at home venting
your frustration over cladistics all the time. And here I was just saying
that the addition of a map would be an improvement - and not just for the
genus overall, but the new species also. And yes, a map for every new
species would be desirable in my opinion. I have just come across a new
species description that recorded its two known localities in Taiwan as
Mts. ShĊĞehshan, Mt. Anmashan. I am, not surprisingly, not familiar with
either locality. I did a Google Earth search and came up with names that
were not identical so I am not sure and so I will have to follow up with an
atlas or more detailed web search - which I will do, but the point is that
a map would have made the information immediately accessible.

Heads has pointed out (to me or on the list, I do not remember) that many
molecular papers have given attention to providing maps - perhaps more so
than many morphological studies. With a map one is able, at a glance, to
perceive information that otherwise would take some time to compile unless
one was already familiar with the coordinates of the localities. I have
often seen efforts by authors to make taxonomic papers of broader interest
or relevance by adding in some speculations (usually empirically baseless)
about biogeography. Maps would also meet that goal and provide more data at
the same time.

John

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>         Well, I certainly think geographic distribution can be
> potentially very informative, as my comment on Antarctica clearly
> demonstrates.  However, this paper is not what I would call a monograph
> (not even of a subgenus, much less a genus), so if you have an axe to grind
> about monographs lacking maps, why pick on a non-monograph to vent your
> biogeographer's frustration?  Shouldn't expect every new species
> description to have a map showing distributions of the entire genus.  Such
> great expectations are often unrealistic, which can result in
> disappointment.
>
>                      ------------------Ken
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:24:14 -0500
> > From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca
> >
> > If one is a biogeographer all distribution maps are potentially
> > informative, including for this study. But of course this is not so
> evident
> > if one does not see geographic distribution as being informative. All too
> > many systematists/taxonomists still omit distribution maps from their
> > monographs.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > By taxonomic placement, I assume he is referring to placement in a
> > > subgenus (Ellicea or Aeneator), and/or relationships of species within
> each
> > > subgenus (or even the erection of a new subgenus or separate new
> genus, as
> > > he mentioned). The future work may be published separately for DNA and
> > > morphological studies, perhaps even by different workers, in which
> case the
> > > issue of combining them would not come up (at least not immediately).
> > >
> > > If it were to be done in one big study, one could certainly analyze
> > > the data for both separate and combined data sets. And, of course,
> there
> > > would be no fossil taxa in the DNA data set. I don't really see much
> of a
> > > problem with his statement being overly ambiguous in the context of the
> > > present paper. Also, I'm not sure maps would have been all that
> > > informative since the purpose of the paper was limited mainly to
> Chilean
> > > species. Maps would certainly not have been as informative as the
> > > photographs, descriptions, comparisons, and keys. Once the wider DNA
> and
> > > morphological studies are done, then mapping the South American,
> Antarctic,
> > > and New Zealand distributions would certainly be informative.
> Especially
> > > if Antarctica played a primary role in the overall distribution of the
> > > genus.
> > >
> > > --------------- Ken
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:45:45 -0500
> > > > From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> > > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca
> > > >
> > > > I thought this was nice paper, although I am not a mollusk
> specialist. A
> > > > couple of comments for future consideration. I found it a little
> > > > frustrating that there were not distribution maps. This might not
> matter
> > > > for those familiar with the group or the region but otherwise makes
> the
> > > > information less accessible. Also, since the point was made that the
> > > genus
> > > > occurred in Chile and 'New Zealand', a map of that
> > > > overall distribution could have been informative since the countries
> are
> > > > just name tags rather than defining a distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, there is the comment that "Further study of radular
> characters,
> > > > comparative anatomy and DNA will improve the taxonomic placement of
> the
> > > > Chilean species." This is ambiguous. What does the author really
> mean.
> > > How
> > > > will the addition of 'DNA' (base pair sequence mating?) improve the
> > > > taxonomic placement? Does the author believe in combining
> morphogenetic
> > > and
> > > > molecular data to get the "improved" result? Without the specifics
> the
> > > > statement becomes a rhetorical device that does not really contain
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > Also, if one is combining morphogenetic and molecular data for living
> > > taxa,
> > > > how does one really integrate fossils that are limited to
> morphogenetic
> > > > characters, especially if a combined approach renders all the
> morphology
> > > > incongruent with the preferred tree that is only supported by
> molecular
> > > > data?
> > > >
> > > > John Grehan
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Juan Francisco Araya
> > > > <jfaraya at u.uchile.cl>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello to All:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been just published; my paper is about a new species of
> > > > > *Aeneator*(Mollusca: Buccinidae), a deep water gastropod from
> northern
> > > > > Chile. You can
> > > > > find it at (it is open access):
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/4446/a-new-species-of-aeneator-finlay-1926-mollusca-gastropoda-buccinidae-from-northern-chile-with-comments-on-the-genus-and-
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Juan Francisco.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > > > >
> > > > > (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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > > >
> > > > (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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list