[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 106, Issue 22

Andres Morales Nuÿfffffffffff1ez amoralesnunez at yahoo.es
Sun Feb 1 10:29:49 CST 2015

Thanks to everyone for your prompt response. I have already obtained all references.


     El Sábado 31 de enero de 2015 13:00, "taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> escribió:

 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
    taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
    taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."

When responding to a message in a digest package, please do not copy the entire digest into your reply as it is tedious for your readers to scroll through pages of unrelated material and older replies.  Many thanks!

Today's Topics:

  1. References (Andres Morales Nuÿfffffffffff1ez)
  2. Re: Impossible geocodes (Richard Pyle)
  3. Re: Impossible geocodes (Tom Schweich)
  4. Re: Impossible geocodes (mesibov at southcom.com.au)
  5. Morrone 2015 track analysis beyond panbiogeography (John Grehan)


Message: 1
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:28:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andres Morales Nuÿfffffffffff1ez  <amoralesnunez at yahoo.es>
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] References
    <519355753.3312795.1422642526931.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi everyone,
I have been trying to find the following publications, but, I have not success:
Nelson, W.G., 1980. Reproductivepatterns of gammaridean amphipods. Sarsia 65, 61–71.

Sainte-Marie, B., 1991. A review of thereproductive bionomics of aquatic gammaridean amphipods: variation of lifehistory traits with latitude, depth, salinity and super family. Hydrobiologia,189, 189–227.

VanDolah, R.F. & Bird, E. (1980). A comparison of reproductive patterns inepifaunal and infaunal gammaridean amphipods Estuarine and Coastal MarineScience, 11 (6), Pages 593–604

I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this matter. 
_____________________________Andrés G. Morales-Núñez, Ph.D.Postdoctoral Research AssociatePaul S. Sarbanes Coastal Ecology CenterUniversity of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES)11802 Marsh View LaneBerlin, MD 21811Telephone-Paul Sarbanes Coastal Ecology Center: 410-621-2996 Ext: 2996
Cell: (410) 603-4325 Email: amoralesnunez at yahoo.es           agmorales at umes.edu 


Message: 2
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:12:43 -1000
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: <mesibov at southcom.com.au>,    <alec.mcclay at shaw.ca>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Impossible geocodes
Message-ID: <005601d03cc0$c7479910$55d6cb30$@bishopmuseum.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="utf-8"

I agree with everything Bob says, except that I have no issue with arbitrarily precise DD values.  The obvious answer, I think, is that there should be no inferred precision without an explicit "Uncertainty" value (i.e., representing a radius around the arbitrarily precise point, thereby defining an area).  Although I guess one could argue that there is somewhat more confidence in inferring precision from DMS values, I think that argument is weak.  In other words, we should always assume that DMS values are likewise arbitrarily precise without an explicit "Uncertainty" value.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of mesibov at southcom.com.au
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:44 PM
> To: alec.mcclay at shaw.ca
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Impossible geocodes
> Alex, I agree with you that DD is a more useful lat/lon format, although I
> don't agree with you that DMS is weird, there's a good reason for it. And
> DMS is a little bit better than DD for implying an uncertainty.
> If I write a latitude in the form 43d 16m 23s S, you might guess the latitude is
> known to the nearest second, or roughly +/- 11 m at that latitude. If I write
> 43d 16m S, you might guess that the latitude is only known to the nearest
> minute, or roughly +/- 670 m.
> In DD, the two latitudes to 4 decimal places are
> -43.2731
> -43.2667
> in both cases implying an uncertainty of +/- 4 m. You can't tell from looking at
> these DDs in uniform format (say, to 4 decimal places) that one had a much
> bigger uncertainty than the other, although you might if the number of
> places given reflected the uncertainty, say -43.27 for the second one (roughly
> +/- 400 m at that latitude).
> By an interesting coincidence, the implied uncertainty in DMS-to-the-
> nearest-second is about the same as the horizontal uncertainty in a handheld
> GPS reading (unless conditions are exceptionally good). The DD-to-4-places
> uncertainty is optimistic for handheld GPS, and the DD-to-5-places you often
> see in published papers is +/- half a metre and evidences a religious faith in
> numbers. DMS is definitely handy for GPS-determined locations.
> I would back DD 100% if it was always accompanied by a specified
> uncertainty, like the Darwin Core one: 'The horizontal distance (in
> meters) from the given decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude describing the
> smallest circle containing the whole of the location'. Unfortunately, that's not
> the case. Very few of the museum collection databases I've looked at even
> have an uncertainty field for location data, and if they do it's largely unfilled.
> Until collectors and data compilers and georeferencers routinely add an
> uncertainty to their lat/lons, I prefer to see 43d 16m 23s S and 43d 16m S,
> because I know for sure there's a difference.
> (Sending this from my old email as Taxacom doesn't seem to like my new
> one, robert.mesibov at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.


Message: 3
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:17:50 -0700
From: Tom Schweich <tas27 at schweich.com>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Impossible geocodes
Message-ID: <54CBD8DE.1080902 at schweich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 1/30/2015 10:27 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
> On 2015-01-30 1:43 AM, mesibov at southcom.com.au wrote:
>>  DMS is definitely handy for GPS-determined locations.
> Handheld GPS units characteristically give an estimated uncertainty 
> figure. It would be computationally simple for the firmware in the 
> unit to limit the significant figures provided in a DD output to 
> roughly match that uncertainty. Too bad they don't.

I don't know about all GPS receivers, but I know that mine (Garmin 
GS76cx) operates in WGS 1984 and decimal degrees (DD).  Any other 
reading on the dial, whether it's DMS or NAD83/UTM is a mathematical 
transformation from what the instrument is reading from the 
satellites.  Sometimes the transformations are simplified and introduce 
errors. Also, my experience is that converting DMS to something mapable, 
i.e., DD, carries a significant risk of error.

A couple of years ago, we had long discussion on TAXACOM about how to 
record/handle/round/truncate/report coordinates.  I believe the proposed 
number of ways to handle coordinates was the square of the number of 
discussion participants, leaving me feeling that no number was 
trustworthy after someone had fiddled with it. As your mapping guy, my 
advice is to set your GPS receiver to its native geographic system, and 
record the coordinates your GPS receiver said, exactly as your receiver 
said it.  Later, when you want to map your data, you can round, 
truncate, or project your locations.

{As for accuracy, I went out on my bicycle and visited 7 control points 
14 times each, and learned that my GPS receiver was accurate (on that 
day at that place) to between 4-5 meters. The centroid of the points was 
shifted to the northeast about 1.5-2.0 m., something I was unable to 
account for. }

Tom Schweich KJ6BIT tas27 at schweich.com


Message: 4
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 06:02:39 +0800
From: mesibov at southcom.com.au
To: tas4 at schweich.com
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Impossible geocodes
    <b3908788621c3b1c57704135e061d33e.squirrel at webmail.eftel.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Tom Schweich wrote:

"The centroid of the points was shifted to the northeast about 1.5-2.0 m.,
something I was unable to account for."

Plate movement? I'm guessing your control points were survey marks in the
local coordinate reference system, which moves with the plate. Here in
Australia, survey marks are databased with the GDA datum, which is more
than 1 metre different from WGS84 because the whole continent is moving NE
at about 6 cm a year.

"I went out on my bicycle and visited 7 control points 14 times each, and
learned that my GPS receiver was accurate (on that day at that place) to
between 4-5 meters"

Excellent test. Have you checked to see how close Google Earth gets to the
control point positions? On a well-georegistered image tile with a
reasonably high-resolution image, Google Earth can do better than a
handheld GPS.

Not much help here in Tasmania under a tree canopy, though. Where in hilly
terrain my GPS struggles to get an 'accuracy' declaration less than 20 m.


Message: 5
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:35:39 -0500
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Portal
    <biogeography at listes.upmc.fr>, Brian Patrick <bpatrick at xtra.co.nz>,
    Hamish Patrick <argyrophenga at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Taxacom] Morrone 2015 track analysis beyond panbiogeography
    <CADN0ud3hywgdjFmed=8RCXHcYi0dyTejjaeDjR8Lydb1NGey7g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

As noted earlier on TAXACOM, the paper by Waters et al (2013) represented a
watershed in the science of biogeography by openly called for suppression
of a competing research program (something that will surely interest
historians and philosophers of science) and berating reviewers and editors
who failed to send panbiogeography to Coventry (i.e. exile).

Fortunately for the quality of biogeographic research in general, the
Journal of Biogeography has not been one to fall into line behind Waters et
al as witnessed by the recent publication by Juan Morrone (2015) ‘Track
analysis beyond panbiogeography.” Morrone notes that “it seems that the
authors [Waters et al] would like to have a sort of Index librorum
*prohibitorum* for panbiogeographic papers. In case a ban on
panbiogeographic papers is proposed, it should first be demonstrated that
they are not scientific contributions.”

Of course I could not agree more, and given the widespread
misrepresentation of molecular clock dates as absolute or maximal (rather
than minimal) it might be more the case that it is molecular dispersalism
that is lacking in scientific content. Whether Morrone is able to go
‘beyond panbiogeography’ I leave for the reader to judge. I do not agree
with several aspects of the paper, and be that as it may, Morrone does make
the case that panbiogeography continues to be an active and serious subject
of enquiry regardless of the prejudices of Waters et al.

So for anyone interested in keeping in touch with the debate and issues I
would strongly recommend reading this paper. It can be obtained from the
author or at the following: http://unam.academia.edu/JuanJMorrone and

John Grehan


Subject: Digest Footer

Taxacom Mailing List

Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.


End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 106, Issue 22


More information about the Taxacom mailing list