After DQP and Ockham, two more principles (from the birds)

[Michael Gochfeld]

I like Chris's approach---the Durden corrollary to the Information Principle. .
Researchers tend to work with SPECIES and seldom bother to find out which
subspecies they have (although it is sometimes or often possible to reconstruct
that information if the study area is adequately described).  So lumped data
are hard to split (Ron has emphasized that recently) because the information
isn't there.

I promised myself I would get some work done this morning----but addiction is
tough to break.

Mike Gochfeld

"Chris J. Durden" wrote:

> For me the difference in habitat preference, implying difference of niche
> is significant. I would favor specific distinction for this pair, pending
> information indicating otherwise.
>     Then I tend to be a splitter in practice. To me the concept of
> "conservative" implies conservation of information. Split data may always
> be later lumped. Lumped data cannot be split, but the work must be done
> over. Of course no damage is done if the two are considered merely
> subspecies. This too is conservative. The truly radical approach is to do
> away with subspecies and a large portion of data that goes along with it. I
> prefer to be a conservative splitter.
> ..................Chris Durden


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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