Forgot you can't send attachmentsto this group. The article is pretty long,
but these three paragraphs give the general flavour:
"Traditionally, species have been identified and categorized on the basis of
morphological differences, but parts of the academic community are becoming
increasingly concerned that "morphological taxonomy", pioneered by Linnaeus
in the 1750s, is no longer equipped to account for the extent of earth's
biodiversity, frequently estimated at between 10- and 15-million species.

"Let's face it, the morphological approach has had 250 years to advance the
task, and we're only 10% of the way towards the goalposts," Hebert told
BioMedNet News. His solution, to which many taxonomists are strongly
opposed, is to distinguish between species on the basis of similarities and
differences in their DNA.

A DNA-based taxonomy would vastly accelerate the final inventory of life,
says Hebert. Each novel organism would be described rapidly and simply by a
"barcode" - a number that corresponds to a sequence of its DNA. Hebert
envisages this "gene species" as a first, mandatory step towards describing
a real species. At a later stage, traditional taxonomists could make the
formal morphological description of the specimen, which would then become
associated with its DNA barcode, he suggests.

Although most taxonomists support a role for DNA in taxonomic research, some
have expressed strong concerns about any move that would make DNA sequencing
a mandatory step in the description of a new species".

The original is on

http://news.bmn.com/magazine/special...=SREP.030109-1 , but it might
not let you in.

Colin

Was there a question to go along with this?
This is pretty old news, demagogical rants, flaws and all.
PvR


c.mcculloch schreef
Forgot you can't send attachmentsto this group. The article is pretty
long, but these three paragraphs give the general flavour:

Colin

Wow! No, it is none of those, although there may be flaws. As for rants -
well, I bow to you as the expert.
Colin

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Was there a question to go along with this?
This is pretty old news, demagogical rants, flaws and all.
PvR


c.mcculloch schreef
Forgot you can't send attachmentsto this group. The article is pretty
long, but these three paragraphs give the general flavour:

Colin

Sorry to come over so strong, but there is too much of this going around. It
is as you say done by a select group of zoologists and they are very
agressive about it. Botanists with same scientific basis (actually a better
one) are much more balanced in what they say and more careful with historic
facts.

The introduction to this topic for botanists is the
_Plant_Systematics._A_phylogenetic_approach_
which was mentioned here a few times. Now in its second edition (2002).
Although not entirely free of error this is regarded as pretty good.

PvR

c.mcculloch schreef
Wow! No, it is none of those, although there may be flaws. As for rants -
well, I bow to you as the expert.
Colin

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
Was there a question to go along with this?
This is pretty old news, demagogical rants, flaws and all.
PvR

c.mcculloch schreef
Forgot you can't send attachmentsto this group. The article is pretty
long, but these three paragraphs give the general flavour:

Colin

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

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

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

In article , P van Rijckevorsel
writes
Sorry to come over so strong, but there is too much of this going around. It
is as you say done by a select group of zoologists and they are very
agressive about it. Botanists with same scientific basis (actually a better
one) are much more balanced in what they say and more careful with historic
facts.

The introduction to this topic for botanists is the
_Plant_Systematics._A_phylogenetic_approach_
which was mentioned here a few times. Now in its second edition (2002).
Although not entirely free of error this is regarded as pretty good.

There is a difference between taking DNA sequence data (or chromosome
counts, or base frequencies) into account when classifying groups of
species, as has been done by APG, Judd et al, etc, as you appear to be
referencing, and making the inclusion of a DNA sequence a *mandatory*
part of the formal description of a species, a proposal for which is
described in the material written by the original poster.

Naively one would expect this sort of proposal from bacteriologists, or
even botanists, rather than zoologists; zoologists have lots of
morphology to work with, and it's not riddled with convergences the way
plant morphology is. I believe that several bacteriological taxa
(whether formally described or not) are only known from PCR amplified
DNA sequences.

I'm tempted to make a deletion in the ITS sequence the defining
characteristic of the Malva alliance (unranked infratribal taxon in
Malveae).

I can see a number of objections to make a DNA sequence a mandatory part
of a species description.

1) which locus? if there's a free choice of sequence, then it's quite
likely that the same species will be described more than once, on the
basis of sequences from different loci.

2) which locus? is there a locus which has a fine enough resolution to
resolve species, while at the same time having a coarse enough
resolution that the sequence is essentially fixed in a single species.
Is there any locus which could be guaranteed to distinguish
allotetraploid _Spartina anglica_ from its parent species, or from the
sterile diploid hybrid?

3) expense. DNA sequencing technology is improving, but it remains a
time consuming, and imperfectly reliable, process to sequence, align and
parsimonize a set of sequences. (50 species at 3 or 4 loci is a Ph.D
thesis; if it was cheap and easy to sequence DNA people would be working
with bigger sets of species, and long stretches of DNA, e.g. the whole
chloroplast.

4) typological thinking (related to 2). Defining (rather than using as
an aid to identification) a species by a DNA sequence assumes
essentialist, typological species concept. (I'm a fan of Mayr's BSC.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

P van Rijckevorsel writes
The introduction to this topic for botanists is the
_Plant_Systematics._A_phylogenetic_approach_
which was mentioned here a few times. Now in its second edition (2002).
Although not entirely free of error this is regarded as pretty good.

Stewart Robert Hinsley schreef
There is a difference between taking DNA sequence data (or chromosome
counts, or base frequencies) into account when classifying groups of
species, as has been done by APG, Judd et al, etc, as you appear to be
referencing, and making the inclusion of a DNA sequence a *mandatory*
part of the formal description of a species, a proposal for which is
described in the material written by the original poster.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

+ + +

Yes, sorry for allowing room to think that mandatory sequencing as part of
the formal description of a species might be in Judd &al.

Whenever a person starts talking about taxonomy as starting with Linnaeus I
am assuming there are so many screws loose in the brain that anything else
said will be pretty close to madness and I only glance through the rest.
I had not really noticed that this one was even crazier that at first
apparent.

Actually it might be fun to see a try to have this become part of the ICBN.
Look what happened to name registration! In this case somebody might
actually bring tar and feathers (would be a first!) to deal with the
suggestion.
PvR

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

Actually the group named themselves after what they called DE eVOlution. As
in going from civilized to primitive, as people tend to do when listening to
music.

The line "Are we not men?" comes from the story "The Island of Dr. Moreau"
by H.G. Wells, in which a mad scientist successfully hybridizes man and
animals. The creatures eventually band together and overthrow the doctor for
control of the island.

http://www.bartleby.com/1001/

Are we not men? We are DEVO?


c.mcculloch wrote in message
...
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
...

Whenever a person starts talking about taxonomy as starting with Linnaeus
I
am assuming there are so many screws loose in the brain that anything else
said will be pretty close to madness and I only glance through the rest.
I had not really noticed that this one was even crazier that at first
apparent.

As the large majority of people believe that the 1758 version of Systema
Naturae *was* the beginning of modern taxonomy, you must miss out on a lot
of reading? Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

I am interested, though, in where you would put the staring point?

Colin

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
Whenever a person starts talking about taxonomy as starting with
Linnaeus I am assuming there are so many screws loose in the brain that
anything else said will be pretty close to madness and I only glance through
the rest. I had not really noticed that this one was even crazier that at
first apparent.

c.mcculloch schreef
As the large majority of people believe that the 1758 version of Systema
Naturae *was* the beginning of modern taxonomy, you must miss out on a lot
of reading? Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

I am interested, though, in where you would put the staring point?
Colin

+ + +
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 ;-) Botany
uses 1753 as the starting point of binary nomenclature, another matter
entirely.

All accounts of botanical taxonomy start off with Theophrastus, and modern
taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or John Ray
(1628-1705). Binary combinations on a largish scale were first used by de
Tournefort (1656-1708).

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

========
On the matter of DNA somebody on another list said something which is too
good not to repeat:

The answer you would get if you sequenced everything and gave it to an
infinitely powerful computer is, of course, 42. Trouble is we are too
lazy to work out what the question really is.

===========
PvR

In article , 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 ;-) Botany
uses 1753 as the starting point of binary nomenclature, another matter
entirely.

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

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

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

All accounts of botanical taxonomy start off with Theophrastus, and modern
taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or John Ray
(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.)

BTW, who introduced the systematic use of ranks above genus?

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

Which system? the Artificial aka Sexual System, based on counting
stamens and styles, or the Natural System, composed of sixty odd
"fragments", some of which correspond to modern groups of rank between
section (Crowfoots) and subdivision (Coniferae). [ Data taken from
Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom" (1846). ]
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:17:04 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

In article , 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 ;-) Botany
uses 1753 as the starting point of binary nomenclature, another matter
entirely.

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

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

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

All accounts of botanical taxonomy start off with Theophrastus, and modern
taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or John Ray
(1628-1705). Binary combinations on a largish scale were first used by de
Tournefort (1656-1708).

Most HS Bio books I have used for my classes use Linnaeus's system as
the beginning of modern taxonomy, and use Aristotle's system as a
comparitive system. Most of them also use the 5 kingdom system.