genera

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

As pointed out by Sean Mullen, there are plenty of definitions, some simple
some not. Very little is black and white, despite the efforts of some people
to make it so. Some selected definitions of species concepts are available
at http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~kll1/speciesdef.html
Also there are a number of links on this fascinating topic at
http://www.biosis.org/zrdocs/zoolinfo/syst_tax.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: 1_iron [mailto:1_iron at msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:48 AM
To: Ron Gatrelle; Leps-l
Cc: James Adams
Subject: Re: genera


Listers:

Haaalllpp!! Will someone please produce a simple, black-or-white, definition
of "species?" Seems to me all else is as James states: artificial.

Jim Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Cc: "James Adams" <JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: genera


> James Adams wrote:
>
> Xi,
> > Perhaps you've explained this already in a previous post and I missed
> > it, but why is Mitoura a genus?
>
> There have undoubtedly been other responses already to this
> question that I simply haven't read yet (catching up after a Labor
> Day weekend), but I may have a different one.
>
> The answer to this question is simple.  Differences of
> interpretation and opinion.  But there is a more basic underlying
> idea that must be understood.  As far as the biological world is
> concerned, there *is no such thing* as a genus.  A genus, and all
> higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial* constructs used by
> humans to represent some level of relatedness.  Genera, families,
> etc. cannot evolve (with the rare hybridization being the only case
> of some fuzziness) -- only species and populations of species.
> Once species are genetically isolated, what happens to other
> evolutionary lineages that they once were connected to are of no
> importance to the evolution of that lineage (with the exception of
> some kind of ecological connection).
>
> So there will *always be* disagreement on what constitutes a
> genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs.
>
> To which Jeffery Oliver replied.
>
> Although if a genus defines a recipocally monophyletic linneage, it is
> biologically informative, especially if that clade is defined by some
> trait which may have lead to it's radiation.
>
> New stuff from Ron.
>
> In these short posts are some very important statments - which perhaps can
> easily be missed. James first.
>     "A genus, and all  higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial*
> constructs used by humans to represent some level of relatedness."
>
> And Jeff.
>     "...it is biologically informative..."
>
> There we have it. It is all about humans trying to understand, define and
> communicate to each other the what, how and why of the natural world. In
> our interest - Lepidoptera. Isn't more communication better than less?
> More knowledge and understading?  Is this only for a scientific elete - or
> is it OK for all of us to "know"?
>
> Why have we come up with words like clade and grade, geography and
> panbiogeography, Danaus and gilippus and strigosus and berenice and
> thersippus and...? To communicate "our" understanding of the natural
world.
> We have discovered fire, the wheel, and even genes. We are suposed to have
> gone beyond
> "Me Tarzan, u Jane"
> "butterfly on pretty thing".
>
> Jeff is absolutely correct - the terms inform.  Subgenera?  Subspecies?
> Absolutamente!  James is almost on the money - "Once species are
> genetically isolated, what happens to other evolutionary lineages that
they
> once were connected to are of no importance to the evolution of _that_
> [newly forming] lineage."  The statment should be: Once a _sub_species is
> genetically arrived into being, what happens to other subspecies of that
> species (still connected _only_ because they can still reproduce viable X
> subspecific offspring) are of no importance to the _evolution_ of the new
> forming linage.
>
> Species do not become species. Subspecies become species. Not "in a way"
> but in factual and intellectual truth, "our" terms of subfamily,
subgenera,
> and subspecies are the most _informative_ areas of study and
communication.
> No wonder folks just see Pearls and not tharos and coyta (heck selenis
> would do).  The new communication is toward ignorance not information.
> Strigosus, berenice and gilippus are evolutionally far apart - gilippus is
> only stuck in the following ( D. _g._ strigosus, D. _g._ berenice, D. _g._
> gilippus) to "tell us"  "by us"  they all came from the same parent (not
> gilippus). We have no idea where each are GOING to. To apply "Queen" to
all
> three of these very different organisms in wrong because it is confusing
> via dumbing down. Striated Queen has been used in may popular books for
> years - so who scrapped it?
>
> Callophrys, Mitoura, Loranthomitoura are all modes of communication _but_
> based on some rational _published_ definition and explanation. Full circle
> back to Xi's question. Why Mitoura?  His question was _specifically_
> relative to it not being used in the Butterflies of Canada.  The lack of
> use there was pointed out by Xi per the authors ref to the Warren and
> Robbins article. Which I in turn pointed out was only a tiny note about a
> "presumed" hybrid with absolutely _no_ definition let alone explanation of
> any generic conclusions whatsoever. The B. of Canada's basing their
generic
> usage or lack thereof is thus based on nothing.
>
> BUT, is not this all just, as James and many other often say, just a
matter
> of  "...differences of interpretation and opinion."?  A yes and an
emphatic
> _no_!  For there to be an interpretation there must first be something to
> interpret - data - scientific data. Where there are published papers there
> can be, will be and should be interpretation but not _alteration_. One can
> not read something into a paper that is not there. Re opinion. There is no
> place for opinion without evidence in science period. Hypotheses and
theory
> are informed questions based on rational observations that point to a
> _suspected_  fact. Well, the earth is flat looked like a good theory -
till
> someone went around it. Once something has been proved as fact NO ONE is
> free to have an opinion contrary to it - except religious zealots and
> idiots.
>
> Email - how unsuited to this. I'll quit. One other thing though. If all
> these ranks etc are really just man made (professor so n so made) and
there
> is "no such thing as" like James said, _and_ if all our taxonomy and
> systematics is just "interpretation and opinion" anyway ---- then why all
> the fuss (from Dr. so n so or so-s ) about Peer Review???????     It is
> either crap or science. And if science it has to have rules and absolutes
> as well as theory. This can not always be communicated to the masses in
its
> most fine frog hair splitting elements - but it should be reflected as
much
> as possible. Thus, Mitoura and Striated Queen.
>
> Ron
>
> PS  James and I agree "So there will *always be* disagreement on what
> constitutes a
> genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs."  I am
> just saying let's have more Constructs not less (technical and popular),
> and let's make sure new Constructs actually have a blue print published
> someplace.  James and I have discussed this in private too -- I don't
sweat
> the load any more than he does - I just come across on line like I do  ;-)
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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 
 

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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