[Taxacom] Species Definition?
ipvl2008 at mail.ru
Tue May 23 12:07:22 CDT 2017
A question: Does God exists? Possible answers: a) certainly does! b) certainly doesn’t! c) don’t know, d) don’t care, e) fuck you!...
A question: Does Species exists? Possible answers: a) certainly does! b) certainly doesn’t! c) don’t know, d) don’t care, e) fuck you!...
Feel difference? Neither do I...
Each one looks at the surrounding World just like at a looking glass – just to see oneself ‘s reflected image = oneself imagination = just what he/she is prepared to see by his/her personality + education + professionality + etc...
So, what are we talking about when we are talking about “god”, “species”, etc... – just about personal imaginations? So, why to argufy about them? Aren’t Hirsch ratings, grants, affiliations much more material and important...
and beer, of course...
- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
>Вторник, 23 мая 2017, 19:18 +03:00 от Hannu Saarenmaa <hannu at bioshare.com>:
>As an informatics person, I am amused to see this thread. And
>facinated too. Why is this still a question?
>"Facts are facts, but perception is reality". Does that that old phrase
>still rule in taxonomy?
>"a species is what a community of taxonomists says it is".
>"Community" is ambigous. So, is "species". Binomial is an attempt to
>antropomorphicically classify biodiversity. Not bad, given that the
>idea was coined 250 years ago. But the game has moved on.
>So can we please just have numbers, or something for IDs of published
>and not yet named, suggested taxonomic concepts, so that we can speak of
>In real world there are no species. Imagine that.
>On 2017-05-23 8:28, Richard Pyle wrote:
>> No, wait! Please don't automatically delete this message based on the
>> subject line!
>> Still with me? Cool.
>> I was curious if anyone read this:
>> And if so, whether you agree with the subtitle, "As DNA techniques let us
>> see animals in finer and finer gradients, the old definition is falling
>> apart"? We all know that people are (ab)using genetic data to draw
>> ever-finer lines among groups of organisms and labelling them with
>> Linnean-style names (binomens, no less). But it's not clear to me whether
>> this represents an evolving consensus on what we mean by "species", or if it
>> is really more reflective of using a shiny new toy to boost one's CV/tenure
>> For the record, as far as I'm concerned, the de-facto definition of a
>> "species" hasn't changed since Darwin's time, paraphrased as "a species is
>> what a community of taxonomists says it is". But my question is about
>> whether the baseline for what the community "says it is" has changed/is
>> changing)? Or, in the long run will we retain roughly the same
>> within-taxon-group gestalt that we've generally had for a while now?
>> And if the consensus really is evolving, is that a good thing (more
>> recognition of biodiversity)? Or a bad thing (increasing incongruence with
>> historical knowledge)? My vote is to keep the best of both worlds and have
>> a massive increase in the use of trinomials, but I imagine that statement
>> will be seen by many as a troll.
>> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>> Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist | Dive Safety Officer
>> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
>> HI 96817
>> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom