[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 159, Issue 12

Rafael Jordana Butticaz rjordana at unav.es
Fri Jul 26 04:03:28 CDT 2019


DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)?


My opinion, after many years of experience, is that you have to make
careful descriptions, with well-made drawings, since they are more
informative than the photographs. the photographs must be of quality
and as complement to the drawings for the color and not for the
morphology, yes for the habitus,. The DNA is complementary, as it is
made with a few hundred bases and recently it has been seen that there
may be important changes between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. I
do not believe that a description with a new name can be accepted only
with DNA.


El El vie, 26 jul 2019 a las 4:35, <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
escribió:

> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>    2. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Kirk Fitzhugh)
>    3. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Derek Sikes)
>    4. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>    5. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>    6. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (John Longino)
>    7. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Neal Evenhuis)
>    8. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Thomas Pape)
>    9. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   10. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Michael Heads)
>   11. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   12. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Donald Hobern)
>   13. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   14. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Michael Heads)
>   15. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Donald Hobern)
>   16. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   17. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Donald Hobern)
>   18. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   19. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (John Longino)
>   20. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Robert Zuparko)
>   21. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   22. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>   23. Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>       (Stephen Thorpe)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: Taxacom List <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <1350880132.621821.1564084293453 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
>
> Yikes!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:19:23 -0700
> From: Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>         <CABB=immP=
> QyaXMmGhi9X0b_Bb9HjuWBiUTQHqkea17u_yUy3cw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless opinions
> regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is just
> another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:45:25 -0800
> From: Derek Sikes <dssikes at alaska.edu>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAFV61VF2wAM7wvXQ2Ce7zPbyg1v6d5bSbDRK6G5kj8h-FnuHsA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Interesting...
>
> I see three basic options for dealing with the remaining 5+ million insects
> awaiting names:
>
> 1) continue with our traditional integrated approach - low error rates, but
> slow (at 10k new spp / year that's 500 more years minimum, to complete
> this, meanwhile we're in the middle of the planet's 6th mass extinction
> event)
>
> 2) speed up our traditional methods using brief morphological diagnoses in
> a manner typical of the 1800s (a few sentences, no illustrations) - high
> error rates (as evidenced by the # of synonyms among older names)
>
> 3) speed up our traditional methods using DNA barcodes as diagnoses -
> medium (or low-ish depending on taxon) error rates
>
> this new approach fits option 3, balancing the need for speed with the need
> for higher quality data. As long as the names are code compliant, why not?
> Seems better than having all these DNA barcode BINs with just code names,
> or these species going extinct before they're named.
>
> Thankfully, my taxon is not hyperdiverse, so I'll stick with option 1, but
> for those working in really hyperdiverse taxa with 90% undescribed rates,
> I'd rather see them use option 3 than 2. In an ideal world, we'd have
> enough research support to speed up option 1 by generating a much larger
> work force of taxonomists. I don't think we live in an ideal world.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:51 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
> Professor of Entomology
> University of Alaska Museum
> 1962 Yukon Drive
> Fairbanks, AK   99775-6960
>
> dssikes at alaska.edu
>
> phone: 907-474-6278
> FAX: 907-474-5469
>
> University of Alaska Museum  -  search 400,276 digitized arthropod records
> http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all
> <http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
> Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
> Network" at
> http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us <http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 21:17:28 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,  Derek
>         Sikes <dssikes at alaska.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <909842680.703864.1564089448862 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  Derek,Option (2), except with diagnostic photos, is far and away the best
> option. Verbal descriptions can be kept to diagnoses. Most of the
> additional characters should be visible in the photos (which may include
> photos of dissections, etc.) Photos are quick, cheap and easy these days. I
> suggest that you are incorrect to equate option (2) with a "return to the
> 1800s". A lot of taxonomists today seem to think that overly longwinded and
> detailed descriptions make them look better, but it is a facade!Stephen
>
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:45:49 pm UTC, Derek Sikes via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Interesting...
>
> I see three basic options for dealing with the remaining 5+ million insects
> awaiting names:
>
> 1) continue with our traditional integrated approach - low error rates, but
> slow (at 10k new spp / year that's 500 more years minimum, to complete
> this, meanwhile we're in the middle of the planet's 6th mass extinction
> event)
>
> 2) speed up our traditional methods using brief morphological diagnoses in
> a manner typical of the 1800s (a few sentences, no illustrations) - high
> error rates (as evidenced by the # of synonyms among older names)
>
> 3) speed up our traditional methods using DNA barcodes as diagnoses -
> medium (or low-ish depending on taxon) error rates
>
> this new approach fits option 3, balancing the need for speed with the need
> for higher quality data. As long as the names are code compliant, why not?
> Seems better than having all these DNA barcode BINs with just code names,
> or these species going extinct before they're named.
>
> Thankfully, my taxon is not hyperdiverse, so I'll stick with option 1, but
> for those working in really hyperdiverse taxa with 90% undescribed rates,
> I'd rather see them use option 3 than 2. In an ideal world, we'd have
> enough research support to speed up option 1 by generating a much larger
> work force of taxonomists. I don't think we live in an ideal world.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:51 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
>
>
> --
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
> Professor of Entomology
> University of Alaska Museum
> 1962 Yukon Drive
> Fairbanks, AK  99775-6960
>
> dssikes at alaska.edu
>
> phone: 907-474-6278
> FAX: 907-474-5469
>
> University of Alaska Museum  -  search 400,276 digitized arthropod records
> http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all
> <http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
> Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
> Network" at
> http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us <http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 21:28:17 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,  Kirk
>         Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <19062793.351920.1564090097067 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty obvious
> that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a cursory
> and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known that
> DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless opinions
> regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is just
> another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:48:24 -0600
> From: John Longino <jacklongino at gmail.com>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <D95F7962.2BCCE%jacklongino at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Michael Branstetter and I have been using UCE sequence data to examine
> species boundaries not just from single sites (like ACG) but from all of
> Central America. It is clear that diversity is fractal and that for every
> local haplotype cluster there are dozens to hundreds of other haplotypes
> spread across the landscape, all residing in diploid individuals that are
> morphologically and/or ecologically nearly identical. So to me, there is
> an issue of practicality and utility. If ACG needs these latin binomials
> to refer to their local sympatric populations, for community ecology
> studies or such, then great. But I am undecided about how to treat
> geographically extensive diversity. If I have a clade that extends from
> Veracruz to Panama, comprising dozens of genetically isolated populations
> (often allopatric, maybe parapatric, maybe narrow zones of sympatry), each
> with its own unique dna barcode, but all looking the same and doing the
> same things, do I really want 100 latin bionomials for those? In some
> ways, I'd like to be able to use a latin binomial for the whole bunch, and
> if necessary refer to "the Guanacaste population of Aus bus, with dna
> barcode xyz." David Donoso has suggested just using BINs to identify
> specific populations. Conceivably we could develop a somewhat subjective
> use of latin bionomials, for scientific communication purposes, and have
> tables that assign multiple BINs to particular latin binomials.
>
> A more general, and insurmountable, problem is that we all are inherently
> typological, and the general public strongly so, so that we can say "We
> have 5 million or so insect species to describe", when species are fractal
> and not something you can readily count (other than in a local assembly).
> This kind of thinking makes conservationists uncomfortable, because the
> public's typology is a powerful conservation incentive.
>
> I have no solution to this, but I do worry that the assignment of latin
> names to ever more finely divided genetic structure across the world will
> reverse the utility of the Linnaean convention we have used for so long.
>
> Jack
> ________________________________________
>
> John T. (Jack) Longino
> Department of Biology
> 257 S 1400 E, University of Utah
> Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
>
>
>
> Longino Ant Lab at https://sites.google.com/site/longinoantlab/
> Project ADMAC at https://sites.google.com/site/admacsite/home
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/25/19, 3:17 PM, "Taxacom on behalf of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom"
> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > Derek,Option (2), except with diagnostic photos, is far and away the
> >best option. Verbal descriptions can be kept to diagnoses. Most of the
> >additional characters should be visible in the photos (which may include
> >photos of dissections, etc.) Photos are quick, cheap and easy these days.
> >I suggest that you are incorrect to equate option (2) with a "return to
> >the 1800s". A lot of taxonomists today seem to think that overly
> >longwinded and detailed descriptions make them look better, but it is a
> >facade!Stephen
> >
> >    On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:45:49 pm UTC, Derek Sikes via Taxacom
> ><taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting...
> >
> >I see three basic options for dealing with the remaining 5+ million
> >insects
> >awaiting names:
> >
> >1) continue with our traditional integrated approach - low error rates,
> >but
> >slow (at 10k new spp / year that's 500 more years minimum, to complete
> >this, meanwhile we're in the middle of the planet's 6th mass extinction
> >event)
> >
> >2) speed up our traditional methods using brief morphological diagnoses in
> >a manner typical of the 1800s (a few sentences, no illustrations) - high
> >error rates (as evidenced by the # of synonyms among older names)
> >
> >3) speed up our traditional methods using DNA barcodes as diagnoses -
> >medium (or low-ish depending on taxon) error rates
> >
> >this new approach fits option 3, balancing the need for speed with the
> >need
> >for higher quality data. As long as the names are code compliant, why not?
> >Seems better than having all these DNA barcode BINs with just code names,
> >or these species going extinct before they're named.
> >
> >Thankfully, my taxon is not hyperdiverse, so I'll stick with option 1, but
> >for those working in really hyperdiverse taxa with 90% undescribed rates,
> >I'd rather see them use option 3 than 2. In an ideal world, we'd have
> >enough research support to speed up option 1 by generating a much larger
> >work force of taxonomists. I don't think we live in an ideal world.
> >
> >-Derek
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:51 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> >taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >>
> >> Yikes!
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years,
> >>1987-2019.
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
> >Professor of Entomology
> >University of Alaska Museum
> >1962 Yukon Drive
> >Fairbanks, AK  99775-6960
> >
> >dssikes at alaska.edu
> >
> >phone: 907-474-6278
> >FAX: 907-474-5469
> >
> >University of Alaska Museum  -  search 400,276 digitized arthropod records
> >http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all
> ><http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/>
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
> >Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
> >Network" at
> >http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us <http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> >Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> >Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> >Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> >Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:52:30 -1000
> From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <D95F4582.CD7A8%neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Almost 10 years ago, Andy Brower described 10 species of skipper
> butterflies based on DNA.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2010.534512
>
> His paper was cleverly written as a caution to others and I recommend it
> be read (or read again for those who have already done so)*.
>
> From his paper: “ ... if phenetically clustered mtDNA sequences represent
> the future currency of biodiversity informatics, then nomenclature (and
> systematics) will become largely superfluous. Biodiversity will be parsed
> according to a phenetic algorithm that ignores homoplasy and
> symplesiomorphy, and recognizes ‘species’ on the basis of a few nucleotide
> differences in a single gene region.”
>
> -Neal
> * Paywall problem? Go here: http://bit.ly/2GvhIYp
>
>
>
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of taxacom <
> TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>
> Reply-To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
> Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:28 AM
> To: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>,
> Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org<mailto:kfitzhugh at nhm.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>
> One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty obvious
> that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a cursory
> and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known that
> DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:
> Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless opinions
> regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is just
> another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:
>
> https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
>
> Yikes!
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org<mailto:kfitzhug at nhm.org>
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ________________________________
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents
> may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure
> or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply
> mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this
> message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:03:57 +0000
> From: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>
> <2D32F21F902B0140BC538F0EA4B5CE200185ED2DE6 at P1KITMBX03WC02.unicph.domain>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >>> all we have here is one photo of possibly limited diagnostic value and
> a DNA sequence for that same individual
>
> This is by itself very useful. And the specimen can be consulted for
> further documentation.
> For many of the new species there are several specimens considered to be
> conspecific, although these are not documented with neither barcode nor
> photo. Great baseline data.
>
> Neal quoted Andy Brower for "... simply because species can be identified
> and publicized on the basis of a few nucleotide differences it does not
> mean that they should be".
> The question is how much (and which kind of) data we think is sufficient
> to justify the proposal of a scientific species-group name.
> No straight answer.
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom
> Sent: 25. juli 2019 23:28
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>
>  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty obvious
> that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a cursory
> and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known that
> DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless
> opinions regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is
> just another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:15:51 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Thomas Pape
>         <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <19867506.663741.1564092951839 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  The specimens may not last forever (Brazil Museum fire, etc.), then all
> we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a DNA sequence for an
> individual! Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of photos in taxonomy, as
> you know, but they have to be a good set of diagnostic photos, and I'm
> picking that if the authors didn't have time to write down a verbal
> morphological diagnosis for each proposed new species, then they didn't
> have time to examine the specimens very closely either to determine which
> characters were important to photograph! This isn't taxonomy!
> Stephen
>
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:04:16 pm UTC, Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  >>> all we have here is one photo of possibly limited diagnostic value
> and a DNA sequence for that same individual
>
> This is by itself very useful. And the specimen can be consulted for
> further documentation.
> For many of the new species there are several specimens considered to be
> conspecific, although these are not documented with neither barcode nor
> photo. Great baseline data.
>
> Neal quoted Andy Brower for "... simply because species can be identified
> and publicized on the basis of a few nucleotide differences it does not
> mean that they should be".
> The question is how much (and which kind of) data we think is sufficient
> to justify the proposal of a scientific species-group name.
> No straight answer.
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom
> Sent: 25. juli 2019 23:28
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>
>  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty obvious
> that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a cursory
> and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known that
> DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless
> opinions regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is
> just another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:33:18 +1200
> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Thomas Pape
>         <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAF_uauBXkE0wb3oAYGbjkY1XhzrHKvAP4w8gB_5jL4RQMcz6UA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Stephen: you say 'all we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a
> DNA sequence'. A DNA sequence is pretty important.
> The paper is a valuable contribution in insect-plant relations, and the
> nomenclature is useful. if I want to discuss, say, restriction to legumes,
> I can cite all these new standardised, binomial names easily, e.g.
> Zelomorpha willsflowersi Meierotto,  known from three species of Erebidae
> feeding on young leaves of Fabaceae.... In most molecular papers, you don't
> get any new formal names, so if you want to discuss their amazing results
> you often have to refer to 'the molecular clade including samples 2, 31 and
> 14'. (or species 2, 31 and 14).
>
> Kirk: you say 'This is just another instance of technology driving science
> at the expense of the established principles upon which science is supposed
> to be based'. Which established principles?
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:16 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> >  The specimens may not last forever (Brazil Museum fire, etc.), then all
> > we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a DNA sequence for an
> > individual! Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of photos in taxonomy,
> as
> > you know, but they have to be a good set of diagnostic photos, and I'm
> > picking that if the authors didn't have time to write down a verbal
> > morphological diagnosis for each proposed new species, then they didn't
> > have time to examine the specimens very closely either to determine which
> > characters were important to photograph! This isn't taxonomy!
> > Stephen
> >
> >     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:04:16 pm UTC, Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  >>> all we have here is one photo of possibly limited diagnostic value
> > and a DNA sequence for that same individual
> >
> > This is by itself very useful. And the specimen can be consulted for
> > further documentation.
> > For many of the new species there are several specimens considered to be
> > conspecific, although these are not documented with neither barcode nor
> > photo. Great baseline data.
> >
> > Neal quoted Andy Brower for "... simply because species can be identified
> > and publicized on the basis of a few nucleotide differences it does not
> > mean that they should be".
> > The question is how much (and which kind of) data we think is sufficient
> > to justify the proposal of a scientific species-group name.
> > No straight answer.
> >
> > /Thomas Pape
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> > Thorpe via Taxacom
> > Sent: 25. juli 2019 23:28
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
> photo)!
> >
> >  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty
> obvious
> > that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a
> cursory
> > and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> > associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> > individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> > categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> > board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> > possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> > individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known
> that
> > DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> > Stephen
> >     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via
> Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless
> > opinions regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This
> is
> > just another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> > established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> > >
> > > Yikes!
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years,
> 1987-2019.
> > >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> > Curator of Polychaetes
> > Invertebrate Zoology Section
> > Research & Collections Branch
> > Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> > 900 Exposition Blvd
> > Los Angeles CA 90007
> > Phone: 213-763-3233
> > FAX: 213-746-2999
> > e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> > http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> > list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> > can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> > list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> > can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
>
>
> --
> Dunedin, New Zealand.
>
> My books:
>
> *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca
> Raton FL. 2017.
>
> https://www.routledge.com/Biogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872
>
>
> *Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge University
> Press, Cambridge. 2014. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028
>
>
> *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
>
>
> *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University Press,
> New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
> http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
> <
> http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Thomas Pape
>         <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <1831298718.743743.1564095833683 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  Michael,That may be convenient from one among infinite possible
> perspectives, but having a formal name for a superficially cobbled together
> species concept is arguably not a good thing! Parasitoids (unlike
> herbivores) are rarely host specific to that extent (1:1), so how are we
> suppose to know if it is several species each with a different single host,
> or one polyphagous species?Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:33:35 pm UTC, Michael Heads <
> m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Stephen: you say 'all we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a
> DNA sequence'. A DNA sequence is pretty important. The paper is a valuable
> contribution in insect-plant relations, and the nomenclature is useful. if
> I want to discuss, say, restriction to legumes, I can cite all these new
> standardised, binomial names easily, e.g.  Zelomorpha willsflowersi
> Meierotto,  known from three species ofErebidae feeding on young leaves of
> Fabaceae.... In most molecular papers, you don't get any new formal names,
> so if you want to discuss their amazing results you often have to refer to
> 'the molecular clade including samples 2, 31 and 14'. (or species 2, 31 and
> 14).
> Kirk: you say 'This is just another instance of technology driving science
> at the expense of the established principles upon which science is supposed
> to be based'. Which established principles?
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:16 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  The specimens may not last forever (Brazil Museum fire, etc.), then all
> we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a DNA sequence for an
> individual! Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of photos in taxonomy, as
> you know, but they have to be a good set of diagnostic photos, and I'm
> picking that if the authors didn't have time to write down a verbal
> morphological diagnosis for each proposed new species, then they didn't
> have time to examine the specimens very closely either to determine which
> characters were important to photograph! This isn't taxonomy!
> Stephen
>
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:04:16 pm UTC, Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  >>> all we have here is one photo of possibly limited diagnostic value
> and a DNA sequence for that same individual
>
> This is by itself very useful. And the specimen can be consulted for
> further documentation.
> For many of the new species there are several specimens considered to be
> conspecific, although these are not documented with neither barcode nor
> photo. Great baseline data.
>
> Neal quoted Andy Brower for "... simply because species can be identified
> and publicized on the basis of a few nucleotide differences it does not
> mean that they should be".
> The question is how much (and which kind of) data we think is sufficient
> to justify the proposal of a scientific species-group name.
> No straight answer.
>
> /Thomas Pape
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom
> Sent: 25. juli 2019 23:28
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!
>
>  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty obvious
> that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a cursory
> and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known that
> DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless
> opinions regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This is
> just another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> >
> > Yikes!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> >
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
>
> --
> Dunedin, New Zealand.  My books:
>
> Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca
> Raton FL. 2017.
> https://www.routledge.com/Biogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand/Heads/p/book/9781498751872
>
>
>
>
> Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis. Cambridge University
> Press, Cambridge. 2014. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028
>
>
>
>
> Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. University of California Press,
> Berkeley. 2012. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
>
>
>
>
> Panbiogeography:Tracking the history of life. Oxford University Press, New
> York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
> http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:25:53 +0000
> From: Donald Hobern <dhobern at gbif.org>
> To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>, taxacom
>         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>         <
> PR2PR09MB3034152B38392B59A58EFB1ADCC10 at PR2PR09MB3034.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I agree with John Longino that our challenge is how we label the units of
> more or less fractal diversity. As Thomas Pape and Michael Heads note, this
> paper does include real information attached to the names, above and beyond
> the barcode sequences. Mapping and exploring this (+/- sympatric) diversity
> is really valuable and gives insights into the ecology and evolution of
> hyperdiverse taxa and megadiverse ecosystems. I would also note that the
> materials referenced in this paper have been vouchered, examined and
> curated to place them in a known and described genus. This does not offer
> carte blanche to assign a name to every BIN in BOLD.
>
> One option we could we follow would be to formalise something like the BIN
> system and associate every BIN with a version history that captures the set
> of specimens and sequences that underlie the BIN at any time and that
> supports coalescence or fragmentation of previous BINs if new sequences
> disrupt the clustering. This would give us set relationships, histories and
> computability for BIN "concepts" that naturally elude us for morphological
> taxon concepts. A paper like this one from Meierotto et al. could then
> represent work to review and formalise some of these BINs according to some
> threshold of confidence. This formalisation could be in the form of a
> curatorial tag on the BIN or, as here, in the form of a published name.
> Most of this work can and should be planned to reinforce today's BIN system.
>
> None of this directly addresses John's question whether we want to publish
> binomials for these units, but my inclination aligns with his comments on
> "the public's typology [as] a powerful conservation incentive" - Linnaean
> binomials are the accepted and trusted way to communicate the diversity we
> discover.
>
> Would it be worthwhile for us to take the time to find morphological
> characters for every clearly diagnosable species within a hyperdiverse
> genus - recognising the scaling issues this involves when the genus runs
> into hundreds of species? I'm not convinced. For many new Lepidoptera
> species, only genitalic criteria are supplied for diagnosis. Are these
> criteria really adequate in all cases for confident diagnosis of a
> candidate insect?
>
> Metagenomics and metabarcoding will soon be the richest streams of data we
> have for surveying and monitoring groups such as the Braconidae, and
> intrinsically these are streams that are particularly amenable to
> computational analysis. This is the real question we must face. As most of
> what we know about the world's insects (or nematodes or ...) comes to be
> derived from sequences, do we want to keep this new knowledge anchored in
> the foundations of a quarter of a millennium of taxonomic endeavour? If so,
> let's find the best possible way to do exactly what Meierotto et al. have
> attempted here.
>
> Edward Meyrick wrote in the Preface to Exotic Microlepidoptera, "The
> purpose of this volume is to ensure the speedy publication of material
> which is required for immediate use in other works proceeding at the same
> time, especially in my contributions to the Genera Insectorum and
> Lepidopterorum Catalogus; the delays incidental to publication through
> other channels would otherwise involve so much arrangement in advance as to
> seriously hamper my work." I see this effort in very much the same light.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Donald
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern - dhobern at gmail.com - ORCID 0000-0001-6492-4016
> dhobern at ibol.org | donald.hobern at sp2000.org | dhobern at gbif.org<mailto:
> dhobern at gbif.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:33:20 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> To: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>,  taxacom
>         <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Donald Hobern <dhobern at gbif.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID: <1268553860.710858.1564097600915 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  Donald,"As most of what we know about the world's insects (or nematodes
> or ...) comes to be derived from sequences, ..."Eh? I can't make much sense
> of that! Please elaborate! I'd say that most of what we know about the
> world's insects etc. is a result of painstaking taxonomy and field work,
> not chucking specimens into blenders and getting a machine to spit out a
> stream of symbols (but maybe that isn't what you meant?)Cheers, Stephen
>     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 11:26:07 pm UTC, Donald Hobern via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  I agree with John Longino that our challenge is how we label the units of
> more or less fractal diversity. As Thomas Pape and Michael Heads note, this
> paper does include real information attached to the names, above and beyond
> the barcode sequences. Mapping and exploring this (+/- sympatric) diversity
> is really valuable and gives insights into the ecology and evolution of
> hyperdiverse taxa and megadiverse ecosystems. I would also note that the
> materials referenced in this paper have been vouchered, examined and
> curated to place them in a known and described genus. This does not offer
> carte blanche to assign a name to every BIN in BOLD.
>
> One option we could we follow would be to formalise something like the BIN
> system and associate every BIN with a version history that captures the set
> of specimens and sequences that underlie the BIN at any time and that
> supports coalescence or fragmentation of previous BINs if new sequences
> disrupt the clustering. This would give us set relationships, histories and
> computability for BIN "concepts" that naturally elude us for morphological
> taxon concepts. A paper like this one from Meierotto et al. could then
> represent work to review and formalise some of these BINs according to some
> threshold of confidence. This formalisation could be in the form of a
> curatorial tag on the BIN or, as here, in the form of a published name.
> Most of this work can and should be planned to reinforce today's BIN system.
>
> None of this directly addresses John's question whether we want to publish
> binomials for these units, but my inclination aligns with his comments on
> "the public's typology [as] a powerful conservation incentive" - Linnaean
> binomials are the accepted and trusted way to communicate the diversity we
> discover.
>
> Would it be worthwhile for us to take the time to find morphological
> characters for every clearly diagnosable species within a hyperdiverse
> genus - recognising the scaling issues this involves when the genus runs
> into hundreds of species? I'm not convinced. For many new Lepidoptera
> species, only genitalic criteria are supplied for diagnosis. Are these
> criteria really adequate in all cases for confident diagnosis of a
> candidate insect?
>
> Metagenomics and metabarcoding will soon be the richest streams of data we
> have for surveying and monitoring groups such as the Braconidae, and
> intrinsically these are streams that are particularly amenable to
> computational analysis. This is the real question we must face. As most of
> what we know about the world's insects (or nematodes or ...) comes to be
> derived from sequences, do we want to keep this new knowledge anchored in
> the foundations of a quarter of a millennium of taxonomic endeavour? If so,
> let's find the best possible way to do exactly what Meierotto et al. have
> attempted here.
>
> Edward Meyrick wrote in the Preface to Exotic Microlepidoptera, "The
> purpose of this volume is to ensure the speedy publication of material
> which is required for immediate use in other works proceeding at the same
> time, especially in my contributions to the Genera Insectorum and
> Lepidopterorum Catalogus; the delays incidental to publication through
> other channels would otherwise involve so much arrangement in advance as to
> seriously hamper my work." I see this effort in very much the same light.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Donald
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern - dhobern at gmail.com - ORCID 0000-0001-6492-4016
> dhobern at ibol.org | donald.hobern at sp2000.org | dhobern at gbif.org<mailto:
> dhobern at gbif.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:33:40 +1200
> From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, Thomas Pape
>         <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
>         photo)!
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAF_uauB-ucA1Sxi4WthRd7GGu0tZqTvZCZgYx54rDY0gX86PZQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> that only matters if you have an absolutist, neodarwinian view of species.
> If you have a darwinian or molecular, 'relative' view of 'the species', the
> question (whether single species or many) isn't important. The focus is on
> 'natural' or 'monophyletic groups.
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:03 AM Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> > That may be convenient from one among infinite possible perspectives, but
> > having a formal name for a superficially cobbled together species concept
> > is arguably not a good thing! Parasitoids (unlike herbivores) are rarely
> > host specific to that extent (1:1), so how are we suppose to know if it
> is
> > several species each with a different single host, or one polyphagous
> > species?
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:33:35 pm UTC, Michael Heads <
> > m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen: you say 'all we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a
> > DNA sequence'. A DNA sequence is pretty important.
> > The paper is a valuable contribution in insect-plant relations, and the
> > nomenclature is useful. if I want to discuss, say, restriction to
> legumes,
> > I can cite all these new standardised, binomial names easily, e.g.
> > Zelomorpha willsflowersi Meierotto,  known from three species of Erebidae
> > feeding on young leaves of Fabaceae.... In most molecular papers, you
> don't
> > get any new formal names, so if you want to discuss their amazing results
> > you often have to refer to 'the molecular clade including samples 2, 31
> and
> > 14'. (or species 2, 31 and 14).
> >
> > Kirk: you say 'This is just another instance of technology driving
> science
> > at the expense of the established principles upon which science is
> supposed
> > to be based'. Which established principles?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:16 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  The specimens may not last forever (Brazil Museum fire, etc.), then all
> > we have is one very superficial habitus photo and a DNA sequence for an
> > individual! Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of photos in taxonomy,
> as
> > you know, but they have to be a good set of diagnostic photos, and I'm
> > picking that if the authors didn't have time to write down a verbal
> > morphological diagnosis for each proposed new species, then they didn't
> > have time to examine the specimens very closely either to determine which
> > characters were important to photograph! This isn't taxonomy!
> > Stephen
> >
> >     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 10:04:16 pm UTC, Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  >>> all we have here is one photo of possibly limited diagnostic value
> > and a DNA sequence for that same individual
> >
> > This is by itself very useful. And the specimen can be consulted for
> > further documentation.
> > For many of the new species there are several specimens considered to be
> > conspecific, although these are not documented with neither barcode nor
> > photo. Great baseline data.
> >
> > Neal quoted Andy Brower for "... simply because species can be identified
> > and publicized on the basis of a few nucleotide differences it does not
> > mean that they should be".
> > The question is how much (and which kind of) data we think is sufficient
> > to justify the proposal of a scientific species-group name.
> > No straight answer.
> >
> > /Thomas Pape
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen
> > Thorpe via Taxacom
> > Sent: 25. juli 2019 23:28
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus
> photo)!
> >
> >  One of my main worries with this approach is that it seems pretty
> obvious
> > that they are basing their judgements of species distinctions on a
> cursory
> > and superficial morphological examination and then assuming that the
> > associated DNA profiles define species! Obviously, however, every
> > individual organism has a different DNA profile, and I doubt that any
> > categorical genetic genetic distance between species applies across the
> > board, so, when all said and done, all we have here is one photo of
> > possibly limited diagnostic value and a DNA sequence for that same
> > individual! This is not taxonomy as we know it! They should have known
> that
> > DNA really stands for Do Not Attempt!
> > Stephen
> >     On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 08:19:46 pm UTC, Kirk Fitzhugh via
> Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  Revolutionary? Not at all. Especially given the largely toothless
> > opinions regarding species and taxa overall that permeate biology. This
> is
> > just another instance of technology driving science at the expense of the
> > established principles upon which science is supposed to be based.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:51 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > https://dez.pensoft.net/article/34683/
> > >
> > > Yikes!
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assaulting

-- 
*Rafael Jordana *
Emeritus Professor
Universidad de Navarra
Department of Environmental Biology
rjordana at unav.es
“Este mensaje puede contener información confidencial. Si usted no es el
destinatario del mismo o lo ha recibido por error, por favor, bórrelo de
sus sistemas y comuníquelo a la mayor brevedad al remitente. Los datos
personales incluidos en los correos electrónicos que intercambie con el
personal de la Universidad de Navarra podrán ser almacenados en la libreta
de direcciones de su interlocutor y/o en los servidores de la Universidad
durante el tiempo fijado en su política interna de conservación de
información. La Universidad de Navarra gestiona dichos datos con fines
meramente operativos, para permitir el contacto por email entre sus
trabajadores/colaboradores y terceros. Puede consultar la Política de
Privacidad la Universidad de Navarra en la dirección:
https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal“

-- 


*Este mensaje puede contener información confidencial. Si usted no es el 
destinatario del mismo o lo ha recibido por error, por favor, bórrelo de 
sus sistemas y comuníquelo a la mayor brevedad al remitente. Los datos 
personales incluidos en los correos electrónicos que intercambie con el 
personal de la Universidad de Navarra podrán ser almacenados en la libreta 
de direcciones de su interlocutor y/o en los servidores de la Universidad 
durante el tiempo fijado en su política interna de conservación de 
información. La Universidad de Navarra gestiona dichos datos con fines 
meramente operativos, para permitir el contacto por email entre sus 
trabajadores/colaboradores y terceros. Puede consultar la Política de 
Privacidad de la Universidad de Navarra en la dirección: 
**https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal* <https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal>****


** **

*This email message may contain confidential information. If you are 
not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the 
sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments.  
The personal information included in email messages exchanged with 
employees of the University of Navarra may be stored in the database of 
your interlocutor and/or the servers of the University for the time-period 
stipulated by its internal information storage policy. The University 
stores such data for purely administrative purposes, to facilitate e-mail 
contact between its employees and third parties. The University of Navarra 
Privacy Policy may be accessed at https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal 
<https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal>      *****

** **

_Antes de imprimir 
este mensaje o sus documentos anexos, asegúrese de que es necesario. 
Proteger el medio ambiente está en nuestras manos.
Before printing this 
e-mail or attachments, be sure it is necessary. _It is in our hands to 
protect the environment.__


More information about the Taxacom mailing list