[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
Anthony Gill
gill.anthony at gmail.com
Tue Jul 14 19:39:19 CDT 2015
2015
Sorry, but the fish classification is a mess. It's an attempt to include
all sorts of recent molecular results, most of which are not particularly
stable (there is a lack of consistency in results among different
studies) or well supported by other lines of evidence. This is going to
cause considerable confusion for anyone that tries to use it.
Tony
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Barry OConnor <bmoc at umich.edu> wrote:
> Well, in this classification, the Acari are treated as two "superorders"
> with all other Arachnida relegated to a single unnamed "superorder".
> Although relationships of mites to other arachnids are still unsettled,
> most analyses have them (as one or two distinct lineages) variously related
> to other "orders" within Arachnida. I'm afraid this "consensus" is the
> fault of acarologists, who typically don't deal with other arachnids. There
> has been a tendency to inflate the ranks of mites so while all spiders are
> comfortably treated as one order, mites now get six. There's no doubt that
> each of the two "superorders" of Acari is monophyletic, less certain is
> whether they are sister taxa. I've always been happy with two orders of
> Acari, given the lack of consensus on monophyly of the entire group. This
> classification is more in line with that of the other arachnid groups, with
> each treated as an order.
> I'll go along with Stephen. This classification sets things in "stone" at
> least for a while for those without particular knowledge or interest in a
> particular group, but with respect to the Acari, I won't use it.
> All the best! - Barry
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > No Robin, it is a clear case of a careless mistake, and I can only wonder
> > how many others are in the paper.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Wed, 15/7/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
> > To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'Richard
> Jensen'" <
> > rjensen at saintmarys.edu>, "'Richard Zander'" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
> > Cc: "'Taxacom'" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Received: Wednesday, 15 July, 2015, 10:35 AM
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -So many mites, so little time!
>
> Barry M. OConnor
> Professor & Curator
> Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
> University of Michigan phone: 734-763-4354
> 1109 Geddes Ave. fax: 734-763-4080
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079 e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Natural History Curator
A12 Macleay Museum
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia.
Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list