[Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 05:12:12 CST 2013


One would like to think so, but any data may have errors. Perhaps it is
better to say one might hope that a third redundancy may reduce the chance
of error? But if maps are generated automatically from coordinates there
may be less scrutiny of each locality. Only if a record is really out of
place (such as occurring in an ocean instead of land for a terrestrial
organism) might the author see from the map that there is a problem.

John Grehan

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Cristian Ruiz Altaba <
cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es> wrote:

> Agree. A map is a third data-check. So it would be error-safe to have a
> detailed description of the locality, the coordinates (preferably both in
> lat long and UTM) and the map.
>
> Cristian
>
> -----taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu escribió: -----
>
> Para: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> De: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Enviado por: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Fecha: 23/01/2013 06:45
> cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Asunto: Re: [Taxacom] New Paper on Mollusca
>
> 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. Shūehshan, 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
> > > > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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