Ah! A mutant new-wave quintet from Akron, Ohio. Should have guessed. Thanks
for furthering my education, though.

Colin

"Cereoid+10" wrote in message
.com...
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Mus...We_Not_Men.asp

http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/music/devo.htm

Where have you been hiding during your lifetime?


c.mcculloch wrote in message
...
Er, what is DEVO?

Colin

"Cereoid+10" wrote in message
.. .
Are you saying if chimps were given the right to vote then the
elections
would have turned out differently and that Neanderthal Dubaya Bush
wouldn't
now be president and we wouldn't be facing the prospect of going to
war
with
Iraq for his daddy and all his rich republican buddies?

Are we not men? We are DEVO?


Iris Cohen wrote in message
...
Based on this theory, man is very closely related to the chimpanzee,
which
poses the ethical question of whether we treat chimps as animals or
quasi-humans.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they
know
so
much
that ain't so."
Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw), 1818-1885

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
P van Rijckevorsel writes
I am quite dubious if the large majority of people believe that
Linnaeus
is the beginning of modern taxonomy. You are the first one I meet ;-)

Apart from Paul Hebert, of course?
Colin


No doubt one could accuse the Linnaean Society of bias, but,

http://www.linnean.org/html/history/..._biography.htm

+ + +
Actually this is quite accurate.
They even put "the 'father of taxonomy' title" between single quotes to
show
it should not be taken literally!

Quite; to show that he was not literally its daddy.
Colin
+ + +

and, they're not the only ones,

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Li...xonomy&num=100

and some of those links are university sites
======

...modern taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or
John Ray

I could be tempted to go with the last two, but I'll stick with the majority
;-) and my old friend Linnaeus.

(1628-1705). Binary combinations on a largish scale were first used by de
Tournefort (1656-1708).

I was looking at one of Tournefort's books today, and in this he was
using binomials, but not necessarily as specific names. (For example, he
has 14 "species" of Malva rosea, most, if not all, would now be ranked
as cultivars of forms. And 8 of Ketmia indica.)

He wasn't the only one. Some of the herbalists were using binomials before
that
Colin


+ + +
=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the system of
Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.

Didn't you see d.buebly's comments above? Sounds as if he is a student.
Colin

Even when published it was
worthless, from a scientific perspective.


+ + +
The importance of Linneaus lies in the fact that he published surveys of
plants which were complete (ie all known plants) and to file these in an
accessible manner he used the Sexual System
PvR

And got well castigated for it. To quote but one - the Bishop of Carlisle:
"A literal translation of the first principles of Linnaean botany is enough
to shock female modesty. It is possible that many virtuous students might
not be able to make out the similitude of Clitoria"
Interesting that the bishop *could*. I reckon it is almost worth giving
Linnaeus pride of place for that alone.
I do agree with your last paragraph :-0, but he also made the study of
plants more accessible by publishing short descriptions of plant species,
and standardised many of the alternative names.

However, when I innocently offered up the report on Hebert's paper, I didn't
expect to stir up so much reaction. It *has* been fun, but perhaps enough is
enough?
Colin

=========
They even put "the 'father of taxonomy' title" between single quotes to
show it should not be taken literally!
=========
Quite; to show that he was not literally its daddy.
Colin

+ + +
There is a saying "succes has many fathers"
+ + +

======
...modern taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or
John Ray

I could be tempted to go with the last two, but I'll stick with the
majority ;-) and my old friend Linnaeus.

=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the system
of Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.
The importance of Linneaus lies in the fact that he published surveys of
plants which were complete (ie all known plants) and to file these in an
accessible manner he used the Sexual System

= = =
I do agree with your last paragraph :-0, but he also made the study of
plants more accessible by publishing short descriptions of plant species,

+ + +
included in "survey", isn't it?
+ + +

and standardised many of the alternative names.

+ + +
The real standardization came only later and some of Linnaeus' choices have
been cursed as idiotic by generations of botanists.
+ + +

However, when I innocently offered up the report on Hebert's paper, I
didn't expect to stir up so much reaction. It *has* been fun, but perhaps
enough is enough?
Colin

+ + +
Actually you might elaborate on what you did mean by:
Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

It is still unclear what system you meant and how it has proved useful?
PvR

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
news
=========
They even put "the 'father of taxonomy' title" between single quotes to
show it should not be taken literally!
=========
Quite; to show that he was not literally its daddy.
Colin

+ + +
There is a saying "succes has many fathers"
+ + +

======
...modern taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or
John Ray

I could be tempted to go with the last two, but I'll stick with the
majority ;-) and my old friend Linnaeus.

=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the
system
of Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.
The importance of Linneaus lies in the fact that he published surveys
of
plants which were complete (ie all known plants) and to file these in an
accessible manner he used the Sexual System

= = =
I do agree with your last paragraph :-0, but he also made the study of
plants more accessible by publishing short descriptions of plant species,

+ + +
included in "survey", isn't it?
+ + +

and standardised many of the alternative names.

+ + +
The real standardization came only later and some of Linnaeus' choices
have
been cursed as idiotic by generations of botanists.
+ + +

However, when I innocently offered up the report on Hebert's paper, I
didn't expect to stir up so much reaction. It *has* been fun, but perhaps
enough is enough?
Colin

+ + +
Actually you might elaborate on what you did mean by:
Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

It is still unclear what system you meant and how it has proved useful?
PvR

Well, OK - I'll have a shot at it, but I'm a bit pushed for time.
Prior to Linnaeus, there was little if any universally accepted system for
the naming of organisms. Although some people used binomials, long
polynomials were still common.
If pressed, I would nominate his sexual system, even though this was very
artificial and not entirely successful.
This taxonomy was pretty soon abandoned by later botanists, but his system
of naming taxa persisted, as it was effective way to communicate about
plants - most educated people then spoke latin, and the binomens (even if,
as you say, many of them were "idiotic") did at least have a precise meaning
(you might disagree with that).
Also, it was simple. Any botanist or naturalist could use the system to
classify and identify plants that he/she had never encountered before, and
this was what most people wanted, and still want. So it was used, and
remained in use. To quote from the Linnaean Society (the London one):
"In his publications, Linnaeus provided a concise, usable survey of all the
world's plants and animals as then known, about 7,700 species of plants and
4,400 species of animals. These works helped to establish and standardize
the consistent binomial nomenclature for species which he introduced on a
world scale for plants in 1753, and for animals in 1758, and which is used
today. His Species Plantarum 10th edition, volume 1(1758), have accordingly
been accepted by international agreement as the official starting points for
botanical and zoological nomenclature. Scientific names published before
then have no validity unless adopted by Linnaeus or by later authors. This
confers a high scientific importance on the specimens used by Linnaeus for
their preparation, many of which are in his personal collections now
treasured by the Linnean Society". and:
"The general adoption by botanists and zoologists of this consistent
two-word nomenclature for species during the second-half of the 18th century
came about because Linnaeus introduced it in comprehensive works which
naturalists soon found indispensable"

Yes, I know that quotes are a bit of a cop-out, but I really do have to
leave this - at least pro tem, and I doubt that I could improve on what they
have to say.

Colin

It seems your quotes are supporting my position not yours?

What has lasted is Linnaeus importance for nomenclature, as the official
starting point of the binary system of names of species.

This binary nomenclature is of vital importance to taxonomy, as well as just
about any other science, with the exception of astronomy (and perhaps some
of the social sciences, although I think not).

I don't see how binary nomenclature can be called a system, except in the
most abstract sense. Likely it is here to stay, although the PhyloCode-
adherents suggest otherwise.

Taxonomy itself was not much influenced by Linnaeus. Thankfully Linnaeus'
Sexual System is forgotten.

The present system of botanical nomenclature uses many ranks, of which only
one rank, species, was affected by Linnaeus.

So there is some reason to recognize Linnaeus as the founding father of
modern nomenclature (although his actual contribution is limited to one
rank), but no real reason whatsoever to connect Linnaeus with taxonomy, let
alone call him the 'father of modern taxonomy'. Of course the popular mind
does not distinguish taxonomy from nomenclature.

What Linnaeus did manage to achieve was good PR, as well as compiling his
complete survey of all known plants, complete with a binary name for each.
PvR

=============
Actually you might elaborate on what you did mean by:
Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

============
It is still unclear what system you meant and how it has proved useful?
PvR

c.mcculloch schreef
Well, OK - I'll have a shot at it, but I'm a bit pushed for time.
Prior to Linnaeus, there was little if any universally accepted system for
the naming of organisms. Although some people used binomials, long
polynomials were still common.
If pressed, I would nominate his sexual system, even though this was very
artificial and not entirely successful.
This taxonomy was pretty soon abandoned by later botanists, but his system
of naming taxa persisted, as it was effective way to communicate about
plants - most educated people then spoke latin, and the binomens (even if,
as you say, many of them were "idiotic") did at least have a precise meaning
(you might disagree with that).
Also, it was simple. Any botanist or naturalist could use the system to
classify and identify plants that he/she had never encountered before, and
this was what most people wanted, and still want. So it was used, and
remained in use. To quote from the Linnaean Society (the London one):
"In his publications, Linnaeus provided a concise, usable survey of all the
world's plants and animals as then known, about 7,700 species of plants and
4,400 species of animals. These works helped to establish and standardize
the consistent binomial nomenclature for species which he introduced on a
world scale for plants in 1753, and for animals in 1758, and which is used
today. His Species Plantarum 10th edition, volume 1(1758), have accordingly
been accepted by international agreement as the official starting points for
botanical and zoological nomenclature. Scientific names published before
then have no validity unless adopted by Linnaeus or by later authors. This
confers a high scientific importance on the specimens used by Linnaeus for
their preparation, many of which are in his personal collections now
treasured by the Linnean Society". and:
"The general adoption by botanists and zoologists of this consistent
two-word nomenclature for species during the second-half of the 18th century
came about because Linnaeus introduced it in comprehensive works which
naturalists soon found indispensable"

Yes, I know that quotes are a bit of a cop-out, but I really do have to
leave this - at least pro tem, and I doubt that I could improve on what they
have to say.

Colin

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:54:11 -0000, "c.mcculloch"
wrote:
snippage
+ + +
=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the system of
Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.

Didn't you see d.buebly's comments above? Sounds as if he is a student.
Colin

HS teacher actually; there is only so much time to introduce important
concepts, so we don't spend too much time on the history of various
science concepts, other than a quick examination. Aristotle to
Linnaeus to modern taxonomy. I prefer to stress that these are
attempts to create an ordered system, and it is constantly evolving as
we get more information.

This should be where this thread started:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~phebert/pdfs...ding_paper.pdf

PvR

Thanks for posting the original article.

I wonder how well this barcoding would work in plants, which
frequently ignore specific, and even generic, boundaries when
reproducing.

M. Reed.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

This should be where this thread started:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~phebert/pdfs...ding_paper.pdf

PvR

I can't say. A considerable part of the advances in 'molecular systematics'
in plants are based on chloroplast DNA which is transmitted through only one
parent (maternal in dicots). This works fine for higher ranks, but at the
species level there is still a world to be discovered.

However I do know that CITES is looking into identifying plant material by
'DNA barcoding'.

Note the article proposes to use mitochondria in animals.
PvR

Monique Reed schreef
Thanks for posting the original article.

I wonder how well this barcoding would work in plants, which
frequently ignore specific, and even generic, boundaries when
reproducing.

M. Reed.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

This should be where this thread started:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~phebert/pdfs...ding_paper.pdf

PvR

Sorry! I jumped to conclusions. Seems you take a nicely balanced approach.
Colin
"d buebly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:54:11 -0000, "c.mcculloch"
wrote:
snippage
+ + +
=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the system
of
Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students
of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.

Didn't you see d.buebly's comments above? Sounds as if he is a student.
Colin

HS teacher actually; there is only so much time to introduce important
concepts, so we don't spend too much time on the history of various
science concepts, other than a quick examination. Aristotle to
Linnaeus to modern taxonomy. I prefer to stress that these are
attempts to create an ordered system, and it is constantly evolving as
we get more information.