[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 08:56:04 CDT 2013


And keep in mind that these divergence estimates are all minimal estimates
so they don't provide much in the way of a factual basis for delimiting
taxa.

John Grehan


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Gill I must in the main part disagree with your comment or
> at least the sentiment:
>
>
> “Willi Hennig years ago tried to
> suggest a standard (age of origin) on which to base rank within a
> classification. BUT he was ignored by all.”
>
>
> Maybe no one at the time came out
> and said “yes great idea”, but this is exactly what is happening in science
> across many disciplines.  For example
> note the recently widely accepted merging of several sea snake genera into
> Hydrophis on the basis of divergence times (recent) and the corresponding
> splitting of other snake genera (e.g. Micrurus, Dendrelaphis) on the same
> basis
> – long and deep divergences.
>
>
> As yet, there is no gold standard
> for division of clades into genera, families and the like based on dates of
> divergence, but you can be assured that most molecular biologists and
> taxonomists worth their salt would have their own guidelines in place as to
> where they draw the line and the majority do seem to be consistent.
>
>
> When I did an audit of the entire
> serpent fauna of the world in recent years, the majority were classified
> fairly
> consistently and with divergence dates for classification levels roughly in
> line with one another.  When old
> divergences were missed and not divided as they should have been, I fixed
> them
> and yet in percentage terms it was only a small number of the total.
>
>
> Of course petty politics and
> personal hatreds will get in the way, as seen with our fellow poster here
> Wolfgang
> Wuster, who runs on the unusual principal of acceptance or rejection of
> names
> for clades (genera etc), not on the basis of any science, but rather who
> has
> authored the proposals, as in those outside his gang are always lampooned
> as “unscientific”
> and rejected.
>
>
> A case in point being his nearly decade
> long call for people NOT to use the name Broghammerus Hoser, 2004, even
> though
> the genus is deeply divergent of all other pythons genera (like about 40
> million years worth according to the molecular biologists) and every other
> herpetologist worth their salt has used the name since it was logically
> proposed.
>
>
> In other words science can only
> progress if people stick to the facts and the rules and the spoilers are
> put in
> their place.
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
>
> Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
>
> The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
>
> Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
> Phones: 9812 3322
>
> 0412 777 211
>
>
> > From: xelaalex at cox.net
> > To: gill.anthony at gmail.com; Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:59:09 -0400
> > CC: laith_jawad at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
> >
> > There is NO scientific information to be derived from higher
> classifications
> > as there are NO scientific principles / standards underlying our current
> > classifications.
> >
> > Willi Hennig years ago tried to suggest a standard (age of origin) on
> which
> > to base rank within a classification. BUT he was ignored by all.
> >
> > So, like Darwin once said of the species, a higher category / group is
> > merely what a specialist decides.
> >
> > So, for example, in Diptera, we now recognize a family which is a clade
> of
> > some 10 thousand species and of some 200 million years old (Limoniidae)
> and
> > another family of less than a dozen species and probably less than 5
> million
> > years old (Inbiomyiidae).
> >
> > And that last family illustrates a new problem that conflicts with real
> > Science. The journal and author who described / published the NEW family
> > were focused on IMPACT factors. Yes, your impact factors greatly increase
> > when you described a NEW FAMILY, etc.
> >
> > So, if one wants to derived scientific hypotheses from classifications,
> one
> > must go back to clades and their age.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > from home
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Gill
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 8:58 PM
> > To: Tony Rees
> > Cc: laith_jawad at hotmail.com ; TAXACOM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [WARNING: A/V UNSCANNABLE]RE: Biodiversity
> questions
> >
> > Fish families merely reflect the historical classifications of the group,
> > rather than anything biological. They differ in relative age and
> diversity
> > (both in terms of morphology and species) and are therefore not
> comparable
> > with each other, let alone with families outside of fishes. The recent
> > changes in the familial classification of fishes (erection of new
> families,
> > synonymization of existing families) have been largely made to
> accommodate
> > hypotheses of relationship (monophyly).
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Very true... families get lumped and split through time (perhaps more
> > > frequently than species), one person's family is another's subfamily
> and
> > > vice versa, and different taxonomic groups have different "norms" about
> > > the
> > > criteria for separation into families... however it may be possible to
> > > look
> > > past that and still see patterns of relative distinctiveness or not.
> > >
> > > Regards - Tony
> > >
> > > Dr Tony Rees
> > > Manager | Divisional Data Centre
> > > Marine and Atmospheric Research
> > > CSIRO
> > > E Tony Rees at csiro.au T +61 3 6232 5318
> > > CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS 7001,
> > > Australia
> > > www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre
> > > Manager, OBIS Australia regional Node, http://www.obis.au
> > > LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-rees/18/770/36
> > > PLEASE NOTE
> > > The information contained in this email may be confidential or
> privileged.
> > > Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received
> > > this
> > > email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by
> > > return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not
> > > represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this
> > > communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of
> > > errors, virus, interception or interference.
> > > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > > > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry OConnor
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013 9:56 AM
> > > > To: Ken Kinman
> > > > Cc: Laith Jawad; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions
> > > >
> > > > And of course, since families, as a ranked category in the Linnaean
> > > > hierarchy, are totally artificial constructs (even if monophyletic),
> > > > and
> > > > don't reflect anything biological other than someone's hypothesis of
> > > > relationships of the included taxa, these questions are really
> > > > meaningless.
> > > > All the best! - Barry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Laith,
> > > > >
> > > > >        I suppose it depends in part how big an area one is looking
> > > > at, and
> > > > > perhaps also whether it is an area of land (its lakes and rivers)
> or
> > > > an
> > > > > area of ocean.  And "what does it mean" questions can be rather
> > > > nebulous
> > > > > and difficult to answer.  Therefore, I would only offer some
> > > > > generalizations just to get the ball rolling.
> > > > >
> > > > >      In general, lots of families with lots of species indicates
> high
> > > > > biodiversity, and few families with only one or two species each
> > > > indicates
> > > > > low biodiversity.  Lots of families with only one or two species
> each
> > > > would
> > > > > still indicate a high biodiversity to me, but obviously not as high
> > > > as lots
> > > > > of families with lots of species.
> > > > >
> > > > >      Few families with lots of species each I might call species
> > > > rich, but
> > > > > low biodiversity (but obviously not as low as few families with
> only
> > > > one or
> > > > > two species each).  Of course, a specialist in one of those few
> > > > families
> > > > > might refer to that high species richness as high biodiversity,
> but I
> > > > > wouldn't.    As for your third question, I'd have to think about
> > > > that, but
> > > > > I would think such ratios would have a more useful meaning in some
> > > > > contexts, but little meaning in other contexts.
> > > > >
> > > > >             --------------Ken
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: laith_jawad at hotmail.com
> > > > > > To: taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:12:29 +1300
> > > > > > Subject: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have three questions regarding fish biodiversity I hope I can
> > > > find
> > > > > their answer with you.Q1. What does it mean if you have large or
> > > > small
> > > > > number of families with only one or wo species in each of them? Q2.
> > > > What
> > > > > does it mean if you have large number or small number of families
> > > > with
> > > > > large number of species?
> > > > > > Q3. In some biodiversity studies, people use the ration no. of
> > > > > species/no. families, no. of genera/no. of families. What does it
> > > > mean if
> > > > > the ratio high or low? and when I should say it is high and when it
> > > > is low?
> > > > > > Are these changes have something to do with the evolution of the
> > > > > families in the area?
> > > > > > Looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.
> > > > > > RegardsLaith A. JawadAucklandNew Zealand
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 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 here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > > >
> > > > > The 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 here
> > > > >
> > > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -So many mites, so little time!
> > > >
> > > > Barry M. OConnor
> > > > Professor  & Curator
> > > > Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Museum of Zoology
> > > >
> > > > University of Michigan                  phone: 734-763-4354
> > > > 1109 Geddes Ave.                          fax: 734-763-4080
> > > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079          e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > >
> > > > The 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 here
> > > >
> > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >
> > > The 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 here
> > >
> > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Anthony C. Gill
> > Natural History Curator
> > A12 Macleay Museum
> > University of Sydney
> > NSW 2006
> > Australia.
> >
> > Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
> > Editorial Board, Species and Systematics:
> > http://www.ucpress.edu/series.php?ser=spsy
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The 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 here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The 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 here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The 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 here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list