[Taxacom] We also see groups and behaviors (was: double-peaked mountains

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 30 09:43:34 CST 2013

Hi Stephen,
      Well, we ALSO see groups of individuals.  AND the behaviors and interactions that we observe (particularly reproductive ones) allow us to see the cohesiveness of such groups.  And given enough observations, that cohesiveness is recognized as a more widespread species.
       This is particularly obvious in the one species we know best, Homo sapiens.  You don't SEE individual people producing families with offspring with individual chimps or orangutans.  However, we do now have genetic evidence that we did interbreed with Neanderthals and other populations that are sometimes given full species status.  So I prefer to view them as subspecies of Homo sapiens.   
     Unfortunately, our data sets for most species isn't anywhere nearly as large as for humans or certain other vertebrates, and all we have to go on may be just a few specimens in museums.  However, we can try to extrapolate from better known species what kind of species cohesiveness may exist for the poorly sampled ones and hope that those extrapolations hold up as new sampling and observations occur in the future.
               ------------------Ken Kinman                                 

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:51:35 -0800
From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] double-peaked mountains
To: kinman at hotmail.com; lists at curtisclark.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

All we can see in nature are individuals! These individuals stand in relationships of genealogy to one another. The pattern in the "family tree" is what we describe as species (and higher taxa). Fortunately, the pattern mostly supports a taxonomy, but sometimes the pattern may be fuzzy.

From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
To: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 November 2013 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] double-peaked mountains

Hi Curtis,    Well, I read the paper.  My response was to Kirk, as he seemed to be taking the side of the "species deniers".  So I was trying to defend the article's main claim:  "Species are salient phenomenal objects. They are salient not because of our perceptual tendencies alone but because they do exist."    However, although we observe species in nature (at least those of us who are not species deniers), do we "observe" genera and families in the same way?  I think that is where Rich and might disagree.  I think we can see a species Homo sapiens in nature, but can we really see a genus Homo or a Family Hominidae?  I think not, at least not in the same way (and especially given the various definitions or circumscriptions we now have for genus Homo and Family Hominidae).                      ---------------Ken Kinman--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:51:22 -0800> From: lists at curtisclark.org> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] double-peaked mountains> > On 2013-11-29 12:28 AM, Richard Pyle wrote:> > Lord knows I shouldn't jump into this fray, 12 hours before heading to the> > airport for several weeks in the field. But...> > It's interesting how the responses rehash old arguments, rather than > respond to the article, which makes some really good points. Did anyone > read it?> > (Not picking on Rich, just using his for a reply.)> > -- > Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark> Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768> > > _______________________________________________>                         _______________________________________________Taxacom Mailing ListTaxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.eduhttp://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacomThe Taxacom Archive 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 hereCelebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list