Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Clang!
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. |