[leps-talk] Conservative taxonomy -

[Michael Gochfeld]

Ron, I have several questions regarding your post on "conservative taxonomy"
MY COMMENTS IN CAPS ARE INTENDED ONLY TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHICH WORDS ARE MINE NOT
TO IMPLY EMPHASIS, SHOUTING, DISPLEASURE OR A DEFECTIVE KEYBOARD.

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

> ___________________________
>
> The key word in all this to me is "prove."

IS THERE ANY OBJECTIVE DEFINITION OF "PROVE" OR "PROOF" WHEN THE CRITERIA FOR
THE BIOLOGICAL SPECIES CONCEPT CAN'T BE TESTED.  ISN'T THIS ONE OF THE REASONS
THE BIOLOGICAL SPECIES CONCEPT HAS BEEN ATTACKED AS INAPPLICABLE OR CAPRICIOUS.



> I consider myself a
> conservative taxonomist.  I define this by the weight I place on the
> published research.  Now this does not mean I agree with what is published,
> but if no other systematic research is available then I feel obligated to
> take the conservative approach and go with the latest nomenclature
> presented in the literature.
>

PRESUMABLY THIS MEANS YOU ACCEPT THE LATEST NOMENCLATURE WHETHER YOU AGREE OR
NOT.
BUT SEE BELOW.


>
> Where there is more than one published paper, I give strong weight to the
> most recent.  However, I am free to weigh all published positions and
> choose which position presents the best argument.

THIS IMPLIES THAT YOU DO CRITICALLY REVIEW THE PAPERS.  THE MOST RECENT OR
LATEST MAY NOT BE THE BEST.


>  Yes, this is a subjective decision but I consider it conservative because it
> is
> nonetheless totally based on published arguments.   I do not give any
> consideration to new alignments in new check lists which are presented
> absent of any published reasons for these new combinations.
>

SO CERTAIN TYPES OF PUBLICATION  (CRITICAL REVISIONS) WARRANT MORE ATTENTION
THAN OTHERS (FRIVILOUS CHECKLISTS).

>
> Why?  Is the cornerstone of science in my view.   When a two year old asks
> why they have to go to bed now, the adult's answer of "Because I said so"
> may suffice.  But "Because I said so" should carry no weight at all in
> anything put forth as science.   I don't care who said it, if they can't or
> won't tell me why, I plan to ignore it.   So in Norbert's examples above, I
> would have to have an explanation as to why and view is held.
>

ABOVE YOU IMPLY THAT YOU ACCEPT THE MOST RECENT, THEN  THE BEST ARGUMENT
AND AGAIN "TELL ME WHY".

> An _assumption_ that there are intermediates, and that two distant entities
> should thus be considered conspecific (the same species) disqualifies the
> position in my mind.  How were the taxa originally described?  That is what
> they should be held as until someone publishes a paper with evidence to the
> contrary.
>

IMPLIES THAT SOMEONE BETTER DO THEIR HOMEWORK ON HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE AND
PRIORITY BEFORE YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT.

>
> If someone has published evidence for speciation based on morphological
> evidence (differences in  anatomical structure and phenotype) in allopatric
> taxa, then those who simply _view_  them as still the same thing are
> without a basis for their position witch renders that position meaningless.
> How unscientific to say "I hold to such and such because so n so said so."
> That is not only not conservative, it is juvenile and void of science.
>

BUT HOW DIFFERENT DOES THE MORPHOLOGY HAVE TO BE IN THE ALLOPATRIC TAXA. (BY
THE WAY I AGREE WITH THIS POINT).
BUT IF THEY HOLD TO "SUCH AND SUCH" BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO, THEY ARE BEING
CONSERVATIVE, WHICH NOW SOUNDS LIKE IT ISN'T A VIRTUE.

>
> My definition of a conservative taxonomist is one that only takes a
> position if there is published evidence (data) to support it.  And where
> there is none or only position(s) that he/she considers to be in error,
> they present evidence through publication for their differing conclusions
> so that others can have something tangible to intellectually weigh.
>

THIS IMPOSES THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CRITICALLY DETERMINE WHETHER PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED "REVISIONS" ARE IN ERROR.

FROM ALL OF THIS I CONCLUDE THAT ONE IS CONSERVATIVE IF THEY FOLLOW A POSITION
THEY AGREE WITH AND DON'T FOLLOW A POSITION THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, WHICH
DOESN'T SOUND CONSERVATIVE AFTER ALL.

BY THE WAY, I CONSIDER MYSELF CONSERVATIVE AS A BIRD WATCHER.  I HAVE NEVER
ACCEPTED THE LUMPING OF THE MYRTLE AND AUDUBON WARBLERS OR THE BALTIMORE AND
BULLOCK'S ORIOLES, AND NOW I FIND THAT BIRDERS A GENERATION YOUNGER THAN MYSELF
HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

MIKE GOCHFELD


>
> Ron Gatrelle


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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