[Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!

Fernandez, Jose (AAFC/AAC) jose.fernandez at canada.ca
Fri Jul 26 09:36:38 CDT 2019


Dear all,

Great debate so far concerning the Zelomorpha paper. I could not resist more the temptation to jump into the discussion because: a) I have published extensively about the braconid fauna of Area de Conservacion Guanacaste (ACG), although in a different subfamily (I have described 400 new species of Microgastrinae wasps over the past 10 years); b) I have been an advocate myself of fast taxonomy (or "turbotaxonomy", as Mike Sharkey, one of the coauthors of the paper, likes to use); c) I have used extensively DNA barcodes in my work; d) I am good friends with most of the coauthors of that paper (in fact, they are Cc here, as there is nothing hidden from me to them; I have also Cc the editor of this paper).

And yet, I am not in agreement with the way the paper addressed the issue, although I do see some value and, most importantly, great potential to improve the proposal of those authors to something in between of "slow" or "fast" taxonomy. So, I will briefly share my criticism of the paper AND my ideas to improve on that. I am writing all of this with the only intention to debate how we can move forward with similar (although rather improved) approaches.

My main criticisms have already being mentioned by several here (I particularly like what John Longino and David Redei have written, but others have expressed valuable ideas as well). First, there is a complete, utter disregard for the previous species described in that genus. As told before here, they just took the approach of considering all species were new. This is just bad and/or lazy science, I am sorry, there is no other way to cut that. Ignoring the previous knowledge makes indeed for easier papers, but I cannot condone that.

Then, there is the problem of the VERY reduced use of photos. In these days of easy/quick photograph (and not added costs to publishing in color) there is no excuse to present one lateral shot per species. YES, I am all in favour of reducing the written part of the description (one picture is worth one thousand words), but NOT in reducing both written and illustrated parts.

My third is related to the lack of a key or any other way to truly recognize the species. And do not give me the "all of those wasps look alike" excuse. You can still provide a key to species group, and then say that in group X all species are very similar morphologically. This is doable -I am writing this because not only I have talked the talk, I have also walked the walk on that topic (e.g., see a paper about 205 species of Apanteles (including 189 new from ACG) and how we dealt with that there. That paper included SEVERAL of the Zelomorpha paper as well! Link here: https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3394) [By the way, I am not promoting my work here, just pointing out an example of a slightly different approach, with many more species than the Zelomorpha paper].

My last criticism is that that approach is not novel, as it has been done before several times and in several groups (albeit not with such "bare" species treatments). This may just be a "pushing the envelope a bit more" example.

Now, as for solutions go, we could have a more "middle of the road approach. For hyperdiverse groups. For groups that are morphologically similar. Reducing descriptions. Using pictures. Relying mostly on DNA barcodes and/or biology. So, allow me to reimagine the Zelomoprhoa paper in a different way and then ask if you think it would have been better. Imagine if that paper:
 
a) Discussed the previously described species. And it would have said something like: "According to the last version of Taxapad (Yu et al. 2016) there are 22 described species of Zelomorpha, 15 of them in the Neotropical region (which are listed in the paper, as well as stating that none of those previously described species have available DNA barcodes)". 

b) Provided a key to the most recognizable species groups (strictly based on morphology, not meant to necessarily be monophyletic groups). I am not an expert of Zelomorpha, so cannot speculate on how difficult it would be (but I have done that for the 205 Apanteles species mentioned above, so I would guess that for 36 new species plus another 15 new = around 50 Neotropical Zelomorpha species that should be doable; you could even do only Mesoamerica and it would be even less species, but at least it would be more meaninful). The key could use some simple morphological characters that would allow the user to place a specimen in a putative group (e.g., all species with yellow mesosoma, as compared with partially black metasoma, etc.).
c) Then off you go with your new species description that would include: 1) A PLATE per species, illustrating several shots of the species (lateral, dorsal, details of whatever specific feature that is important in Zelomorpha); 2) DNA barcodes; 3) Biology; 4) A VERY short diagnostic description (something like: Species X has yellow A, black B, and the length of X is Y, it runs in the key above to the group of species that have characters 1,2 3, but cannot be distinguished for the other species there other than by DNA barcodes and/or host); 5) of course, type depository, type info, specimens examined.
d) Historical species, without DNA barcodes or host info, are still accounted for, even if imperfectly (as compared to the "new ones"), as they would be keyed out to a species group. And then they are mentioned in the paper with as much information as possible (even if only something like: "Species Z was described from Panama, based on one specimen -which we have not been able to examine. The original description is very poor, nothing is known of its biology and there is no DNA available for this species. In our key it runs to couplet X, altogether with the new species 1, 2, 3, which cannot be distinguished from Z by morphological characters". 

Now, that "reimagined paper" would indeed provide a basis for future studies on Neotropical Zelomorpha. Old species were accounted for, even if "imperfectly". A key to groups (based on some simple morphological traits) wa provided, so that those specimens without molecular or biological data can still be placed into a group of (hopefully!) not many other species. New species would be minimally described in words, but relatively well illustrated. DNA barcodes and biology would still be the backbone of the taxonomy of that group, but integrated with other sources of information about the taxon... And BEST of all, such a reinvented paper would have only needed a few more hours of photographing the specimens (in a more comprehensive way), and some work preparing that basic (morphology-based) key, plus accounting for the information about the historical species (even if no effort is done to locate types, which I think it must be tried, but I am even leaving that out). Such a paper would have still been produced in a relatively fast way, but it would be much more useful than the current iteration...

I indeed think (and strongly support!) that we should use DNA barcodes (and other molecular, biological, and so on tools) to speed up the taxonomy. It can be done. But it could be done a bit better and in a more useful way (for future users) than what was done in the Zelomorpha paper. Hopefully we keep this debate open (and in a civilized way ;-) to help each others to improve our work on that...

Cheers,
Jose

--
José L. Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canadian National Collection of Insects (CNC)
960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA
Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at canada.ca Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of David Redei via Taxacom
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 12:19 AM
To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus photo)!

This paper is a complete mystery for me.

The authors claim that Zelomorpha had 50+ described species prior to this study, distributed from S USA to Argentina, but predominantly Neotropical.
Now they collected 336 specimens from Costa Rica, they sequenced all of them, grouped into 15 genetic-distance-based species, and describe each of those as new.

Apparently the genus is fairly unrevised, at least in the present paper I did not find any reference to previous revisions or comprehensive taxonomic works which the authors used for identification. In their paper I did not find a single remark about the previously described 50+ spp. of Zelomorpha, except one species, Z. arizonensis, of which they possessed some molecular material, therefore they provided p-distances between Z. arizonensis and some of their new species. The new species are not placed into taxonomic context, simply defined one by one with brief sequences, and the paper does not give any arguments why did the authors think that each of their 15 new species is different at species level from the 50+ already described Zelomorpha..

The study gives me the impression that the authors simply went to a tropical place, collected many specimens of a given group, sorted to species following some criteria (p-distance), and described everything as new, with completely omitting the very significant already-described diversity of the group in the region. I did not find any justification in the paper why they felt this procedure as justified. There was no Zelomorpha previously described from Costa Rica? Even if it is true (not discussed in the paper), all other species described from other Neotropical countries can be a priority excluded, do the authors really think that there is no need to compare any of the Costa Rican species with any other Neotropical already-described Zelomorpha? Why? At least some justification should have been given for this in the paper, I did not find any.

Such a protocol of course speeds up taxon naming significantly, because it is of course fairly easy to describe a big number of "new species" from any place of the world if one ignores all previously described species, and leaves the painstaking work of compasons with the previously described species for others. But it seems a fairly trivial procedure and I do not really understand the point for doing so, in my opinion it *increases *rather than decreases confusion within the given taxon. I am not a Hymenoptera specialist, but judging merely from this paper it seems to me that now we have 50+ spp. of Zelomorpha defined exclusively on a morphological basis,
15 spp. defined on a molecular basis, and only one of of them (Z.
arizonensis) has both morphological and molecular definition. (I do not consider providing a single lateral habitus photo as a meaningful morphological definition and a valid comparison with other taxa.) With other words, nomenclature of the genus is now split into two: there are "molecular species" and "morphological species" of Zelomorpha, with almost no connection between the two groups, therefore identification of any specimen now is probably more difficult than before, in lack of a uniform taxonomic framework.

Sorry if I completely misunderstood the paper and I misinterpret its content, but based on reading the paper quite carefully this was my impression. If my impression is correct, then it is difficult to call this work as "taxonomy".

With best regards,

David Redei


On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the 
> provisions of Article 11 and must13.1.1. be accompanied by a 
> description or definition that states in WORDS characters that are 
> purported to differentiate the taxon Are these "words"?? 43–45 TTA,
> 54–57 CTTT, 75 G, 136–138 GTG, 165 T, 321 G, 417 G, 462 G, 477 C, 561 
> G, 684 G
>     On Friday, 26 July 2019, 12:59:54 am UTC, Stephen Thorpe via 
> Taxacom < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>   Robert,I must disagree. Unlike specialist herbivores, insect 
> parasitoids rarely if ever have a single host species. You can't just 
> assume different host => different parasitoid, and use this as a basis for the taxonomy!
> Some species will have wide host ranges, and others less so. It would 
> take a great deal more time and effort to sort that out than it would 
> to simply look at traditional morphological characters used to 
> separate species in the group and offer this in the form of a brief diagnosis.Cheers, Stephen
>     On Friday, 26 July 2019, 12:55:55 am UTC, Robert Zuparko < 
> rz at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>  I am by no means in favor of the DNA approach, but I would like to 
> point out that the characterization of  "... 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!" is not correct. In 
> the paper, the authors note that biological associations of 
> parasitoids with their hosts made up a big part of their 
> determinations, a key factor that is very useful in distinguishing parasitoid species.
>
>
> Robert Zuparko
> Essig Museum of Entomology
> 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, #4780 University of California 
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3112
> (510) 643-0804
>
>
>
>
> |  | Virus-free. www.avast.com  |
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:33 PM John Longino via Taxacom < 
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> We need to shout loudly about taxonomic underpinning: agreed. The DNA 
> barcode enthusiasts could dial down the hubris a bit. We generally do 
> not do environmental sampling for all sequences in a soup, the way 
> microbial ecologists do. We use experience with a group (field 
> surveys, morphological examination) to select which individuals to 
> sequence, among the infinite biomass one could select. A highly 
> efficient means of learning about macroorganismal diversity. I 
> sometimes feel that people forget how much taxonomic knowledge goes 
> into deciding which specimens to sequence.
>
> Botanists giving up field surveys: disagree. One doesn't follow from 
> the other. Most botanists I know find their field surveys even more 
> rewarding when they can complement morphological results with sequence 
> results, greatly enhancing what they learn and guiding new expeditions 
> to new places.
>
> Local councils: disagree. Highly trained botanist cannot be in all 
> places at all times. When sequence-based identification is easy and 
> accessible, a local enthusiast can look around, get to know the local 
> flora, query a sequence database to get the identification, look at 
> taxonomic info and learn about the species. I predict this capability 
> will increase opportunities for professional taxonomists, because 
> people will want web resources with abundant info on the species they have found.
>
> What I find disagreeable about dna barcoding evangelists is their 
> dismissing of taxonomy as too slow or too old fashioned. That always 
> smacks of hucksterism, like selling "new and improved" versions of 
> something by smearing some competing or older brand. From my 
> perspective the most advanced taxonomists have always kept abreast of 
> the latest technological developments that improve understanding of 
> diversity. To me, the paper that sparked this conversation is a nice 
> collaboration of sophisticated taxonomists, field naturalists, and dna 
> barcoders. It is too bad they "sell" their work by juxtaposing it to 
> "that bad, old, slow taxonomy." They could just say "DNA barcoding has 
> allowed us to advance taxonomy, building on the large knowledge of 
> morphological divisions among clades, to further differentiate species 
> differences within morphologically uniform groups."
> ________________________________________
>
> 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, 6:01 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:
>
> > Donald,No offence, but I view that as somewhat of a defeatist 
> >attitude!"I mean simply that, within the next few years, the tooling 
> >and practice underpinning the majority of biodiversity survey work 
> >for such groups will be based on high-throughput sequencing"In some 
> >areas maybe, like mycology where fungi have fruiting bodies only some 
> >of the time and there is no way to ID hyphae morphologically, but I 
> >don't see any signs of that happening in general botany, for example.
> >None of the botanists I know are about to give up doing field surveys 
> >by way of traditional methods! If local councils etc. want to know 
> >what plants are in an area up for development or whatever, they are 
> >not turning to DNA sequencing.Unless we keep shouting loudly that 
> >sequencing relies on a taxonomic foundation (rather than the other 
> >way round), we are going to help taxonomy on the road to 
> >extinction.Just knowing DNA sequences of species before they become 
> >extinct due to "climate change" (or whatever your doomsday scenario 
> >of choice is) is essentially no different to not knowing anything about them!Cheers, Stephen
> >    On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 11:44:45 pm UTC, Donald Hobern 
> ><dhobern at gbif.org> wrote:
> >
> > #yiv3499115493 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}I mean simply that, 
> >within the next few years, the tooling and practice underpinning the 
> >majority of biodiversity survey work for such groups will be based on 
> >high-throughput sequencing. We will be mapping community composition, 
> >species distribution and species interactions via DNA. Increasingly, 
> >this information will be all, or almost all, we have for large 
> >swathes of species.
> >As organismal enthusiasts, I think we would both want this 
> >information to be more than a cloud of anonymous clusters. If we tell 
> >the world to pay us to find morphological criteria for separating all 
> >of these clusters, we will rightly be told to do it on our own time.
> >If however, we keep these clusters as low-information, but 
> >potentially very well mapped, components in an evolution of our 
> >current taxonomic models, we will be able to apply more effort to 
> >study and describe in more detail those species that actually matter 
> >from a functional, conservation or human-relevance aspect.
> >I see this as a sensible strategy for triaging taxonomic effort in a 
> >planet that is on fire.
> >Donald
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-Dona ld Hobern - dhobern at gbif.orgGlobal Biodiversity Information 
> >Facility
> >
> http://www.gbif.org/--------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >----------------
> >
> >From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of 
> >Michael Heads via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 1:33 AM
> >To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions (with one habitus 
> >photo)! 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 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/He
> ads
> >>/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&sou
> rc
> >>e=gbs_navlinks_s>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >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/He
> ads/
> >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&sou
> rce
> >=gbs_navlinks_s>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
>
>
>
> |  | Virus-free. www.avast.com  |
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list