[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
Robin Leech
releech at telus.net
Tue Jul 14 17:35:24 CDT 2015
2015
Hmmm. Stephen,
You'd do that without listening or reading about it? That is tantamount to "My head is made up. Don't
bother me with the facts."
The Neuropterida is a natural group, so whether you consider it on a par with Holometabola, or as a subgroup, it
doesn't matter. As you know what is a subfamily today is a family in the making tomorrow (e.g., Family Thomisidae,
with the subfamilies Thomisinae and Philodrominae about 10 years ago). Today we have Thomisidae and Philodromidae,
and I have not seen any dissention among the troops on this.
Often what happens is that with more work done, the distinctions between two subfamilies become more distinct.
I can cite other examples of this for the family Amaurobiidae. What was once considered 1 family with a number
of subfamilies is now a whole bunch of erections to family level.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: July-14-15 4:16 PM
To: Richard Jensen; Richard Zander
Cc: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
Well at any rate, any classification which pulls Neuropterida out of Holometabola goes straight into my rubbish bin!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 15/7/15, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
To: "Richard Jensen" <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Wednesday, 15 July, 2015, 2:40 AM
This thread seems to consider
classification either as a non-theoretic pattern of evidence
or a subjective art form. I think that there are objective,
scientific criteria for judging a "best" classification,
e.g. the dissilient species/genus/family concept in:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/Repr/Zander-Framework.pdf
Stephen suggests that " The term "natural classification"
refers to a classification based on
evolutionary/phylogenetic relationships"
Which is it? Phylogenetic relationships minimize paraphyly,
evolutionary relationships maximize paraphyly. The
classifications are commonly different.
-------
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis
– Missouri – 63110 – USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Richard Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:46 AM
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher
Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
Stephen,
Isn't ant classification simply one of a set of alternative
classifications?
And, you have your interpretation of what a "natural"
classification is, but this is not something that has been
accepted by all. The history of the concept of natural
classification is fraught with disagreements, sometimes
quite heated, about this idea.
Cheers,
Dick J
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Not that well said, actually! The term "natural
classification" refers
> to a classification based on evolutionary/phylogenetic
relationships
> rather than on subjective judgements of similarity
and/or "groups of convenience".
> As I said earlier in this thread, one is free to choose
a
> classification, and that of Ruggiero et al. is a choice
one may
> choose, but there could be problems resulting from
sticking too
> rigidly to it for too long, that's all. There may be
better
> alternatives. I would really hate to see it adopted as
some kind of
> "official standard", when all it is is one suggestion.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 14/7/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al.
"A Higher Level
> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> To: "'Pierre Deleporte'" <pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr>,
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Tuesday, 14 July, 2015, 9:16 AM
>
> Well said, Pierre.
> Robin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Pierre Deleporte
> Sent: July-13-15 2:16 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al.
"A Higher Level
> Classification of All Living Organisms"
>
>
> all classifications are concepts - there is
no classification
> without a classifier - there is no "natural"
> classification standing in itself out there in
the natural wild
> (proponents of "natural" classifications should
meticulously explain
> what they mean)
>
> useful classifications serve communication
purposes (talking of
> things or 'objects' by meaningful classes
rather than on by
> one)
>
> many classifications can be useful, provided that
they fit their
> goals (what kind of information do we want to convey
> ?) and their specification (what are the desired
properties of such
> a classification, given its goals ?)
>
> in the present case, the classification of
Ruggiero et al.
> should be evaluated according to its specific
goals (some kind of
> informal "majority rule consensus" for practical
purposes of
> stability on a 5-years basis)
>
> criticisms in terms of "scientificity" or
"naturalness" are largely
> missing the point
>
> Best,
> Pierre
>
>
>
> Le 13/07/2015 19:45, Richard Pyle wrote :
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > A piece of string is as long as it needs to
be to perform a
> specified task.
> > In this case, you still seem to be having
trouble understanding
> what > the specific task of the CoL consensus
taxonomy is. Tony
> Rees > answered much more effectively than I
could have; but the key
> point to > understand is that a consensus
taxonomy of this sort is
> established > explicitly to facilitate harmony
among disparate
> datasets, to more > effectively allow
cross-dataset comparisons, and
> to dramatically > simplify activities
that benefit from a general
> organization of > biological names into a
rough/approximate SHARED
> classification. In > this context, the
importance of stability and
> shared use of the > consensus
classification across multiple
> data-providing constituents > VASTLY
exceeds the importance of
> reflecting the evolutionary >
speculation du jour. We have plenty
> of information streams to provide >
dynamic/evolutionary
> classifications as new information becomes
> available in real time.
> What we've been lacking (prior to the >
establishment of this CoL
> consensus taxonomy), is a community-oriented
classification
> "flag-pole" around which data content providers
can collectively
> rally.
> >
> > Also, your reference to a "new species"
further reveals your >
> misunderstanding of what this consensus
classification is intended >
> for. If you had read the paper, and downloaded
the classification,
> you > would see that it only goes down as far
as the rank of Order.
> More > granular changes to taxonomy (e.g.,
families, genera,
> species, etc.) > are not included (those are
in the realm of the
> much-more dynamically updated CoL itself).
> > Personally, I think a consensus
classification at the rank of
> Order > and higher probably does not need to
be updated more than
> once a > decade, but I suppose that revisiting
it every five years
> is a reasonable frequency.
> >
> > In any case, I agree with Tony that the
discussion has gotten a
> bit > off track.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> > Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> > Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences |
Associate Zoologist in
> > Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer Department of
Natural Sciences,
> > Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI
96817 > Ph:
> (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> > http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:40
AM >> To: Richard Jensen >>
> Cc: Kenneth Kinman; Taxacom; Richard Pyle
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> New paper: Ruggiero et al.
> "A Higher Level
> >> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >>
> >> Dick,
> >> Yes, but how long is a piece of string?
Five years is too long!
> >> Problems
> > arise
> >> trying to fit new species into
classifications which don't yet
> >> recognise > the >>
relevant higher taxa. Do we really want a 5
> year time lag for new > species??
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------
> >> On Mon, 13/7/15, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
New paper:
> Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
> >> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >> To: "Stephen Thorpe"
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> Cc: "Kenneth Kinman"
<kinman at hotmail.com>,
> "Taxacom"
> >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> "Richard Pyle"
> >> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >> Received: Monday, 13
July, 2015,
> 4:30 AM
> >>
> >> Stephen,
> >> I didn't miss your
point.
> Anyone who works in
> >> taxonomy/systematics is
> > well
> >> aware of the lag time between a
taxonomist making a discovery
> and >> the > rest >>
of us learning about it. Thus, all
> classifications are restricted >>
to > what is >> presently known
> by those constructing the classification -
they >> cannot be
> expected to add caveats or make allowances
for information >> that,
> while > just >> discovered a
nanosecond before they submitted their
> final edited >> copy, >
was >> not available to them.
> >> Let's be realistic
about this.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Dick J
> >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015
> >> at 6:26 PM, Stephen
Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >> Dick
> >> J said: ..., perhaps I
missed
> something in Stephen's last note;
> >> isn't
> > any
> >> classification (except for those
that are purely fanciful)
> limited >> by > what is
>> presently known?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, you did miss
something, i.e.
> the point! My point was that
> > classification
> >> (particularly when based on
phylogenetic
> >> analyses) is
continuously changing
> with new information coming in
> >> all
> > the
> >> time. Yet, I strongly suspect that it
may be something like at
> least >> a > decade >>
before CoL, etc. think about reviewing the
> results of Ruggiero et al.
> > (2015).
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>> --------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12/7/15,
Richard Jensen
> <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New
paper:
> Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
> >> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >>
> >> To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >>
> >> Cc: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>,
> "Taxacom"
> >> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >>
> >> Received: Sunday, 12 July,
2015, 1:57
> AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> all,
> >>
> >> A couple of
> >>
> >> observations:
> >>
> >> First,
> >>
> >> as Richard Pyle noted,
consensus does
> not necessarily mean
> >>
> >> unanimity. If so,
then most
> political bills would never be
> >>
> >> passed. Think of
'consensus
> trees"; these reflect
> >>
> >> areas of agreement among
competing
> views and leave the
> >>
> >> differences largely
unresolved.
> >>
> >> Second, perhaps I missed
something
> >>
> >> in Stephen's last note;
isn't any
> classification
> >>
> >> (except for those that are
purely
> fanciful) limited by what
> >>
> >> is presently known?
> >>
> >> Third, I haven't read the
paper,
> >>
> >> but comments made by
several
> participants certainly come
> >>
> >> close to reflecting the
thinking of
> numerical taxonomists,
> >>
> >> whose classifications were
based on
> overall patterns of
> >>
> >> agreement among all
characters
> available (or all characters
> >>
> >> used in the particular
> analysis). These classifications
> >>
> >> were intended, in keeping
with ideas
> expressed by Gilmour,
> >>
> >> to be useful and, perhaps,
serve as
> the basis for inferring
> >>
> >> components of evolutionary
> relationships (although this was
> >>
> >> not the goal). Based on
what I've read
> here, the new
> >>
> >> classification attempts to
provide a
> useful
> >>
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Dick J
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at
> >>
> >> 11:14 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no
> >>
> >> problem with alphabetical
sequencing
> of taxa at each level,
> >>
> >> in fact I prefer it. My
only gripe is
> that the paper be seen
> >>
> >> for what it really is, i.e.
simply a
> choice of
> >>
> >> classification, based in
part on
> PRESENTLY available
> >>
> >> evidence. Also,
classifications should
> really be specified
> >>
> >> from the bottom up. Top
down
> approaches just push a lot of
> >>
> >> unresolved rubbish down to
the lower
> levels and ignore
> >>
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 11/7/15, Richard
Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re:
[Taxacom] New
> paper: Ruggiero et al.
> >> "A
> >>
> >> Higher Level
> Classification of All Living
> >>
> >> Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To: "'Kenneth
Kinman'"
> <kinman at hotmail.com>,
> >>
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Received:
Saturday, 11
> July, 2015, 2:37 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure, one could
argue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> indefinitely
about how to
> contruct a "better"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> consensus
> classification. But these LITERALLY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> endless
arguments are
> exactly
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> why no such
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> comprehensive
> classification has previously been
> >>
> >> presented
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> FOR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> THE PURPOSES
INTENDED BY
> THIS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
classification. The
> value of this listing is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> not the
"classification"
> part, so
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> much as it is
the
> "consensus" part.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Consensus is not
the same
> thing as unanimity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You can
certainly convey
> your
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> personal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> opinions (as
listed below)
> to the architects of the
> >>
> >> list,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and maybe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a future version
will be
> altered
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> to reflect them
(assuming
> your opinions
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> resonate with
the broader
> consensus).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In any case,
sequencing of
> names in a list is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> an incredibly
BAD way to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> represent
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> phylogenetic
information;
> ESPECIALLY in the context of
> >>
> >> that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> this
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> particular list
is intended
> for. If
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> you want to
represent
> affinities of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> taxa,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> there are three
basic ways
> to do it:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1)
Come
> up with a mark-up scheme (like
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> yours)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Acknowledge
names at ever
> finer units of intermediate
> >>
> >> ranks,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> so that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> relationships
can be
> represented
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> within nested
sets
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 3)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Draw a
cladogram
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For the purposes
of this
> list,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> any sequence
other than
> alphabetical
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (particularly if
some sort
> of information is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> intended to be
conveyed by
> the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> particular
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sequence) would
have been a
> very silly thing to do.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Aloha,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Kenneth
Kinman
> [mailto:kinman at hotmail.com]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent: Friday,
July 10, 2015
> 3:39 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: RE:
[Taxacom] New
> paper: Ruggiero et
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> al. "A Higher
Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All Living
Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Rich,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> I think John is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> being overly
harsh.
> Overall, it's not a bad
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classification,
but I think
> it certainly could
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> be made
better. The
> protist
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classification
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is very good,
thanks to the
> work of Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cavalier-Smith.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's too bad he
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> couldn't get his
co-authors
> to classify
> >>
> >> Posibacteria
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Archaebacteria
together in
> one Kingdom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (and
Negibacteria in
> another). I
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> still
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> think
alphabetizing the
> lists is still a sad loss of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
information. It
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> may be a bit
more
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> convenient for
some, but
> I'm sure many others will
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> find
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the loss of
information
> more than just
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> an
inconvenience.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> I don't understand why they
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> didn't subdivide
the list
> of orders of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> eutherian
mammals (and
> splitting Pilosa and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cingulata as
separate
> orders
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> unfortunately
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> eliminated the
more
> familiar name Xenarthra, as well as
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> being
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> separated
> alphabetically). And of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> course, I would
raise Aves
> back to Class
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> status, and add
an {{Aves}}
> marker within
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Reptilia.
Anyway,
> even if they
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> insist on
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> retaining the
alphabetical
> "convention" for
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> convenience of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> some, there is
still
> plenty
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of room for
improvement in
> my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
---------------Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> P.S.
Hexapoda is
> probably
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> polyphyletic.
> Collembola almost certainly
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> evolved
hexapody
> independently from one group
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of crustaceans,
and the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> insects from a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> different group
of
> crustaceans
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > --
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
---------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > From: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > To: calabar.john at gmail.com;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Date: Fri,
10 Jul 2015
> 14:52:03 -1000
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom]
> New paper: Ruggiero
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> et al. "A Higher
Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of All Living
Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi John,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I think you
would need
> to read the full
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> paper (not just
the two
> lines of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> text I
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> quoted from the
abstract)
> before you could make an
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> assessment as
to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> whether or not
their work
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> fits within your
own
> personal definition of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "science".
Considerably
> more
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> investigation
would be
> required before you
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> could
confidently infer
> whether or not the work
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> falls within the
authors'
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> own personal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> definitions of
"science".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Aloha,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > From: John
Grehan
> [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sent:
Friday, July 10,
> 2015 1:00 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > To: Richard
Pyle;
> taxacom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom]
> New paper: Ruggiero
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> et al. "A Higher
Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of All Living
Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Yes I was
implying
> (explicitly) that the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> authors of the
paper appear
> to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> have a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> definition of
science
> (assuming that the classification
> >>
> >> was
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> being
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> represented as
science)
> where science
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is a 'consensus'
of
> opinion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> compromising
conflicting
> information. When one
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> comes up with a
compromise
> of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the sort it
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> does not appear
to be a
> process that is attempting to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> reflect
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> reality
(whatever that
> might be),
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> but just a
compromise
> between different
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> opinions. A good
example of
> this is how
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> so-called
ecological areas
> were
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> defined in
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> New Zealand
(Under the
> Protected Natural Areas program,
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> lots of money to
boot)
> according to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> compromises over
different
> opinions
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> about
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> where the
boundaries
> between the areas were to be drawn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (said
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> boundaries
having no
> reality anyway,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> hence the
ability to
> 'compromise').
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Perhaps I
am being
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> awfully
presumptuous, but
> if it is presumptuous to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> regard consensus
opinions
> as outside science
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> then so be it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > John
Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jul
10, 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> at 4:06 PM,
Richard Pyle
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The "nature
of
> reality" is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sufficiently
vague that it
> could be interpreted
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> just as broadly
as
> "science" can
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> be.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > My only
point is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> that the outer
boundaries
> of "science" are
> >>
> >> not
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> well
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> defined.
Controlled
> experimentation
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> following the
scientific
> method is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> squarely
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> within the realm
of
> science, and most would argue that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> things like
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Astrology are
pretty
> clearly at
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the very
outskirts. In
> between those is a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> very broad range
of
> activities, such as
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> phylogenetics,
taxonomy,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> nomenclature,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> informatics, and
a whole
> host of other things that may
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> may
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> not conform to
some
> particular
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> person's
definition of
> "science".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Your
comment, to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> which I was
responding,
> seemed to imply that we all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (including the
authors of
> the paper) share a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> definition of
science that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> would
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> unambiguously
exclude their
> paper from
> >>
> >> "science"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (i.e., the
notion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> that the
authors
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> self-evidently
"admit" that
> their work is not
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> science).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That seemed
awfully
> presumptuous
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Aloha,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > From: John
Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sent:
Friday, July 10,
> 2015 9:52 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > To: Richard
Pyle
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject:
Re:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Taxacom] New
paper:
> Ruggiero et al. "A Higher
> >>
> >> Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
of All
> Living Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Perhaps,
but what do
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> you think is
incorrect
> about the one I gave? Are you
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> saying consensus
opinion is
> science?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > John
Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jul
10, 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> at 3:30 PM,
Richard Pyle
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > We all like
to believe
> our own definition
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of "science" is
the correct
> one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sigh..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > From: John
Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sent:
Friday, July 10,
> 2015 9:23 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > To: Richard
Pyle
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Cc:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> TAXACOM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject:
Re: [Taxacom]
> New paper: Ruggiero
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> et al. "A Higher
Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of All Living
Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > At least
the quotes
> show that the authors
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> admit their work
not be
> science
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (if science
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is understood to
be about
> the nature of reality beyond
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 'consensus'
opinion).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > John
Grehan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jul
10, 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> at 3:07 PM,
Richard Pyle
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hmmm....
I've been
> deliberately quiet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> on this thread
as well. I
> appreciate
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> viewpoints of
Ken and
> others in terms of holophyly, the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> value of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> acknowledging
paraphyletic
> taxa
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> through Linnean
> nomenclature, etc. This is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> all good
philosophical
> grit, and I enjoy the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> intellectual
stimulation
> as
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> much as
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> anyone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > However,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> this thread
began (and
> remains?) relevant to the PLoS
> >>
> >> ONE
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> publication of
Ruggiero et
> al., which provides
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a generalized
**CONSENSUS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
CLASSIFICATION**.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps there is
some
> misunderstanding on what is meant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> by
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> this term (and
the
> associated
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classification)?
Anyone who
> read as far as the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> abstract of this
paper
> should at least know
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> that:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "This
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classification
is neither
> phylogenetic nor evolutionary
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> instead
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> represents a
consensus view
> that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> accommodates
taxonomic
> choices and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> practical
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> compromises
among diverse
> expert opinions, public
> >>
> >> usages,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> conflicting
evidence about
> the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> boundaries
between taxa and
> the ranks of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> major taxa,
including
> kingdoms."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > And:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Beyond
its
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> immediate use as
a
> management tool for the CoL and ITIS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Integrated
Taxonomic
> Information System), it
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is immediately
valuable as
> a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> reference for
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> taxonomic and
biodiversity
> research, as a tool for
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> societal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> communication,
and as a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classificatory
"backbone"
> for biodiversity
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> databases,
museum
> collections, libraries, and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> textbooks."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In this context,
it is
> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the
> >>
> >> subtaxa
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> within a taxon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> are
alphabetically
> arranged!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is absolutely
NOT
> intended to reflect any
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sort of
"naturalness" in
> patterns of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> evolution. Yes,
it probably
> does kinda-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sorta- happen to
reflect
> modern views of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> evolutionary
relationships
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (otherwise
there
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> wouldn't be much
consensus
> behind it). But its
> >>
> >> function
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> to serve as a
tool for
> informatics and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> generalized
(i.e., highly
> simplified)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> organizational
> representation of life on Earth.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As such, it is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> overwhelmingly
valuable to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> the people for
whom it was
> intended (see second
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> quote above).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Aloha,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
-----Original
> Message-----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > From:
Taxacom
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Behalf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Of
Richard
> Zander
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Sent:
Friday,
> July 10, 2015 7:51
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > To:
TAXACOM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] New paper:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ruggiero et al.
"A Higher
> Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
Classification of All
> Living Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Maybe
now
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> is the time to
add my
> perspective, backing up that of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ken.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Phylogenetic
classification
> is artificial. Artificial
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> classifications
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> use one set of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > traits
to group
> taxa, e.g., molecular
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> races, shared
traits
> (only).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Artificial
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
classifications
> are repeatable, yet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> repeatability is
not the
> only
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> requirement
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
science.
> Alphabetization is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> repeatable.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Principles
of
> phylogenetic classification are
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> artificial.
Some
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> principles
include
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > strict
monophyly
> (so long Aves),
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> putting known
taxa at the
> top of a tree
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
relationships
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
("tree-thinking") rather
> than in the tree
> >>
> >> when
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> known
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (stem-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> thinking),
ignoring the
> probability of extinct
> >>
> >> paraphyly
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> that casts
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> doubt on
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > molecular
trees,
> ignoring the evolutionary
> >>
> >> importance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of
autapomorphies,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
asserting that
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> only zero length
branches
> imply a surviving ancestral
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> taxon,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
pretending
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> that a cladogram
is "the
> evidence" (when it
> >>
> >> is
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> only some
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
evidence) and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> evolutionary
theory is mere
> narrative . . . you can
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> probably
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > think
of
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> more
phylogenetic
> principles of classification that do
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> violence
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> evolutionary
theory
> developed only after long struggle
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> artificial
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
classifiers of
> the
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> past.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Classification
by
> phylogenetic principles is actually
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> quite
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> unprincipled,
and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > serves only
to
> preserve a modification of older
> >>
> >> methods
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> of numerical
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
taxonomy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
-------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard H.
Zander
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Missouri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Botanical Garden
- 4344
> Shaw Blvd. - St. Louis -
> >>
> >> Missouri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 63110 -
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > USA richard.zander at mobot.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Web sites:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
-----Original
> Message-----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > From:
Taxacom
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Behalf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Of
Nico Franz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Sent:
Friday,
> July 10, 2015 12:16
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > To:
TAXACOM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] New paper:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ruggiero et al.
"A Higher
> Level
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
Classification of All
> Living Organisms"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Computational
logic? Nico
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Reasoning over
> taxonomic change:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118
> >> 247
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Taxonomy - for
> computers:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/09/022145
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Date:
Thu, 9 Jul
> 2015
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > From:
Kenneth
> Kinman
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Hi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
Logically, we
> must
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> remember that
[...]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Jensen,
Professor
> >> Department of Biology
> >> Saint Mary's College
> >> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> >>
> >>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> Pierre DELEPORTE
> UMR6552 EthoS
> Université Rennes 1
> CNRS
> Station Biologique
> 35380 PAIMPONT
> tél (+33) 02 99 61 81 63
> fax (+33) 02 99 61 81 88
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list