[Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 23:45:02 CST 2013


If a map had been provided then one would not have to go through the
process of converting the lat long information. Of course in providing that
the paper is sound, but all I am saying is that a map makes that
information more immediately accessible, and as noted in one of the other
posts about miss-location, doing the actual map provides the author with a
check on whether their map references are more or less in the right place.
Whether one calls that venting is neither here nor there. And one person's
nit picking is another's due diligence.

John Grehan

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  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