Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 13:08:55 CDT 2015 

Richard,

I can appreciate that there can be differences in understanding of a term.
My little dictionary here (American Heritage) gives for consensus 1)
collective opinion, 2) general agreement or accord. The first is definitely
my understanding of consensus - a collective opinion and by collective to
mean everyone (one sees this in politics where reaching consensus only
refers to everyone buying into a decision). The second reference to
'general' agreement may be more problematic as 'general' may mean not
everyone - but in such cases how general becomes general?

With a consensus cladogram the operation leaves unresolved conflicting
trees (whatever the criteria) where a choice cannot confidently be made for
any one of the conflicting trees. In that operation there is no 'consensus'
of opinion other than by said criteria a choice cannot be made.

Semantics perhaps, but science lives through language.

John Grehan

On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
wrote:

> John,
>
> You appear to be using consensus in a way that most of us are not.  While
> consensus may be defined as unanimity, that is not often the case.   I
> can't speak for all on the list, but my guess is that the consensus here is
> that consensus means generally agreed upon, consistent with the
> preponderance of evidence or some such view.
>
> If you insist on applying you preferred definition to consensus, then
> please make that clear for the sake of those reading your posts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dick J
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:14 AM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting that since it is a majority view according to Karen, that the
>> classification is actually not agreed upon by all of the participants.
>> Hence it is not a consensus classification at all. The only consensus
>> would
>> seem to be by the minority views agreeing to subsume their disagreement/s
>> in favor of the majority. So the classification is a representation of a
>> majority of the participants it would seem.
>>
>> Consensus is often misapplied is systematics - in my opinion. Even for
>> something that is claimed by some to be a systematic fact (and therefore
>> unassailable) there may not be consensus. To use my favorite example,
>> there
>> is no consensus that chimps and humans are sister taxa. The number of
>> people who disagree may number less than the number of digits on one's
>> hands, but its still not a consensus. There may, however, be a consensus
>> among smaller coalitions such molecular practitioners as I have not seen a
>> single one who has opposed the chimp theory of relationship (but if anyone
>> has found an exception please let me know!).
>>
>> John Grehan
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Karen Wilson <
>> Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
>>
>> > It certainly wasn't so when I was involved with the CoL some years ago,
>> > Stephen, and I don't expect it has changed.
>> > The only caveat is, as Rich said, that this is a consensus (or rather,
>> > majority) view and therefore any researcher with hypotheses on taxon
>> > relationships widely different from most other workers in that
>> particular
>> > field would have to persuade people that his/her hypothesis/view is more
>> > explanatory /believable and, most importantly, useful in this context
>> than
>> > that/those of the other workers
>> >
>> > Karen W
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> > Karen L. Wilson AM
>> > Senior Research Scientist, National Herbarium of New South Wales
>> >
>> > Adjunct Associate Professor, University of New England, Armidale, NSW
>> > Secretary, General Committee, International Code of Nomenclature for
>> > Algae, Fungi & Plants
>> >
>> > Botanic Gardens & Centennial Parklands
>> > T +61 (02) 9231 8137 | E karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
>> > Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW
>> > 2000, Australia
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>> > Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2015 1:41 PM
>> > To: Richard Jensen; Wilson Karen
>> > Cc: Taxacom
>> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
>> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
>> >
>> > >you could help to improve future versions by getting involved with the
>> > >project and contributing your expertise<
>> >
>> > I think it is by "invitation only" ...
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------
>> > On Sun, 12/7/15, Karen Wilson <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
>> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
>> >  To: "Richard Jensen" <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
>> >  Cc: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> >  Received: Sunday, 12 July, 2015, 3:02 PM
>> >
>> >  Exactly, Dick.  This is intended
>> >  as a pragmatic way to arrange/link information about all  organisms so
>> > that the information can be made available  electronically, no more nor
>> > less than that.
>> >
>> >  It is unrealistic to think that such a classification can  reflect all
>> of
>> > the most up-to-date research findings - or  that it can be changed very
>> > frequently, given the  intellectual and keyboard effort needed to make
>> such
>> > changes  carefully to avoid losing links to the information.
>> >
>> >  Congratulations to my former colleagues at Species 2000 and  ITIS for
>> > producing this updated classification for the  Catalogue of Life (and
>> for
>> > use by any other digital system  that needs one).
>> >
>> >  For those picking holes in certain areas of it: you could  help to
>> > improve future versions by getting involved with the  project and
>> > contributing your expertise.
>> >  Just a thought.
>> >
>> >  Karen Wilson
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> >  Karen L. Wilson AM
>> >  Senior Research Scientist, National Herbarium of New South  Wales
>> >
>> >  Adjunct Associate Professor, University of New England,  Armidale, NSW
>> > Secretary, General Committee, International Code of  Nomenclature for
>> > Algae, Fungi & Plants
>> >
>> >  Botanic Gardens & Centennial Parklands
>> >  T +61 (02) 9231 8137 | E karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au  Royal Botanic
>> > Gardens & Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries  Road, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
>> >
>> >  -----Original Message-----
>> >  From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>> >  On Behalf Of Richard Jensen
>> >  Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:57 PM
>> >  To: Stephen Thorpe
>> >  Cc: Taxacom
>> >  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher  Level
>> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
>> >
>> >  Hi all,
>> >
>> >  ... Based on what I've read here, the new classification  attempts to
>> > provide a useful consensus.
>> >
>> >  Cheers,
>> >
>> >  Dick J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >  This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may  contain
>> > confidential and/or privileged information.
>> >  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the  sender and
>> then
>> > delete it immediately.
>> >  Any views expressed in this email are those of the  individual sender
>> > except where the sender expressly and with  authority states them to be
>> the
>> > views of the NSW Office of  Environment and Heritage.
>> >
>> >  PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >  Taxacom Mailing List
>> >  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> >  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> >  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> >
>> >  Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
>> > confidential and/or privileged information.
>> > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
>> > delete it immediately.
>> > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender
>> > except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be
>> the
>> > views of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.
>> >
>> > PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> >
>> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list