[Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 22 18:16:10 CST 2013


John,       Well, I only vent about the extremes of cladistics (and as I have said before, I love clades and cladistic analysis done well).  I can understand you wanting to vent about the location of the new species in Taiwan.  However, I still don't know why you decided to start nit-picking about the Aeneator paper.  Table 3 gives information (lat., long.) on localities where all the Chilean species have been collected, which is a lot more than a lot of species descriptions give.  Perhaps you could map out these ranges, post the map here, and tell us how valuable such a map would have been in this case.  And I think it unreasonable to expect a map of the whole genus in a paper concentrating on the Chilean species.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:37:07 -0500
> From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca
> 
> 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
> > >

 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list