concept 4

[warrena at bcc.orst.edu]

Quoting Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>:

Thanks Ron!  All I can say is that I would not 
know "biological truth," "functional truth," "absolute 
truth," or the "actual pattern of evolution" if it came 
up to me and hit me in the face :) 

I have yet to see an objective definition of a 
subspecies anywhere in print.  Please direct me to the 
source if anyone knows of such a definition.

Andy



> 
> 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 
>  
> 

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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