concept 4

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Niklas Wahlberg" <Niklas.Wahlberg at zoologi.su.se>
Subject: Re: concept 4


> At 09:39 23.11.2001 -0500, Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> >I don't have one.  Which is not to be confused with not having a clue.
> >RG

> Do I understand correctly? You don't have a species concept? Does this
mean
> you describe species/subspecies on ad hoc principles with no underlying
> hypotheses of what actually constitutes a species or subspecies (in your
> opinion)? I'm quite surprised since if this is so then it takes the
> credibility out of your work.  Please elaborate as I'm sure you do have
some
> kind of concept!
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>

Hi- Niklas & all.
    Actually, after eating too much food on Thanksgiving Day and reading
and writing too many Leps posts - my brain was drained and I was attempting
to make a light hearted moment or joke of a complex issue.
    So, seriously.  First, I do not like the word "concept".  I feel my
science is built on something much firmer than that.  What is being
referred to as "concepts" I refer to as modes of analyzation - tools.
Different biota and situations call for the use of different tools - or
combinations of means and methods - to definitively uncover the actual
pattern of evolution at work relative to a given organism, or group (of
what ever hierarchical  mass)  that results in a thesis that as accurately
as possible relays the biological truth about the subject analyzed.
   As we know, life does not move in accord with, in deference to, our
dogmas or concepts (from dogmatic Creationism to theoretical Evolutionism).
Life is wild and free like the wind.  Too many taxonomist try to tame it,
organize it, and make a hard science out of it - like inorganic chemistry.
We can only observe its multiplicity as it moves in time and space (at
erratic pace) and then try to translate (taxonomy) and communicate
(systematics) this living wind into semi-structured human statements
(nomenclature) to help us understand what-it-is.
    Just as a dog is not wagged by its tail - a taxonomist should not be
controlled by his tools.  If we go to University as if it was a Concepts
Shop to see the various products  offered by professors X, Y, & Z so we can
then pick (buy into) _ONE_ to subsequently use to fit _all_ our life's
research through, then we have not received an education we have simply
bought into someone else's preconceived ideas.  In my opinion, from
religion to politics to science, the humans who "lead" these fields are 99%
followers of, and thus wagged by, their respective predispositional tails
of doctrine, affiliation, and theory.  This (again in my opinion) is why
the world is so screwed up and intolerant - continually in conflict.
    There is a great deal of difference between concepts (one's personal
ideas) and precepts (functional truth)  Our view of nature is a concept.
What nature does is the reflection of the precepts by which it functions.
I only work with Lepidoptera.  I am thus only concerned with the speciation
precepts by which these sexual animals function in time and space.  My only
course is to observe and listen to them.  To do this I am aware of many of
the tools (concepts) and approach the situation with a knowledge of them.
I do not approach a taxonomic situation "locked" into one concept (with
only one tool).  I approach the "patient" with tools available to best
detect and unmask the actual individual species functionality.  With
Lepidoptera, I have found that what _we_ call "biological species concept"
and "evolutional species concept" are easily discernable as primary
precepts (absolute truth) of how the Lepidoptera function in time and
space.  However, in this living wind we come to places where clear "units"
have not yet evolved - and other exceptions to our rule (box).  I therefore
find the "phylogenetic species concept" very useful in those areas.
     I do not see these concepts as either or choices.  Where does it say
that one has to be locked into one "camp" or another?  How is a closed mind
some how more virtuous than one that sees truth in several biological
"concepts" and absolutes in none of them?  Or, that recognizes that
different types of biota are best understood by very different criteria and
expressed in dissimilar human terms?  (I am not looking for feedback here -
I am editorializing.  Though other editorials are certainly welcome.)

    Most of my work has been with what we call subspecies.  This is the
most frequently occurring "grouping" within Lepidoptera - and the most
neglected in in-depth study.  It is also one that is not easily understood
and delineated in human terms.  The choices seem to be to ignore them
(because they are so subjective on one hand) or do the difficult work of
delimiting them (by finding their objective definition).  Genetics have
little use here.  Biogeography, evolution, morphology, biology are the
tools best suited for this job.
    This post is now getting long and this is getting into another subject.
I don't know if this has clarified anything or muddied things more.  Last
year I received a letter from Mr. Bryant Mather, the dean of Mississippi
lepidopterists.  As an "old" guy he has been intimately involved with all
the great North American Lepidoptera taxonomists of the last century and
now into this one.  With this letter he sent me copies of several others he
had written and received from various colleagues.  One letter was to Terry
Doyle re the status of A. midea (Falcate Orange tip) in Texas.  At one
point Mather said "..I think most of what Gatrelle is doing is valid - if
you believe in subspecies..." He later continued, "Gatrelle and Opler are
potentially good taxonomists - Gatrelle is better, Opler is broader..."
    I was quite flattered, and humbled, when I read Mather's comments.  As
someone who tends to be insecure, it was not so much what was said but who
said it that meant a lot to me and why I would include this in my folio of
"recommendations" :-)

Ron Gatrelle


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl