[CPN] Article 21

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

My mention of a unified species concept is not part of the proposals that we supposed to be discussing but was brought up in response to David's comment below.

Kevin

From: <Cellinese>, Nico Cellinese <ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu<mailto:ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu>>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:33 PM
To: Kevin de Queiroz <dequeirozk at si.edu<mailto:dequeirozk at si.edu>>
Cc: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic at gmx.at<mailto:david.marjanovic at gmx.at>>, Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] Article 21

I am having a really hard time to understand why we need to discuss or refer to species concept or even imply the value of a unified species concept when in fact we are dealing with nomenclatural issues. We are naming taxa = clades and whether people draw an analogy between these and 'species' should be none of our business.

Nico


On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:48 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:

Yes, of course I'm aware of that issue.  However, I still think it is more
appropriate and useful to view those differences as criteria that exist
within the context of a single general concept of species.  I've used a
cartographic analogy to describe this situation previously (see de
Queiroz, 1999, The general lineage concept of species and the defining
properties of the species category, p. 64-65):  in the context of the
single general species concept, the various properties that are
responsible for the differences among traditional species definitions
("concepts") can be viewed as criteria for deciding which species to
represent in a taxonomy that function analogously to criteria that are
used to decide which population centers to represent on a map.  See also
O'Hara (1993, Systematic generalization, historical fate, and the species
problem).

In addition, I've argued in a different paper (de Queiroz, 2005, A unified
concept of species and its consequences for the future of taxonomy) that
we should not over-emphasize one or another species criterion (as implied
in David M's suggestion that authors should state which species "concept"
they have adopted in the protologue) but rather list ALL of the relevant
properties that the species in question is inferred both to possess and
not to possess.  See the section "Current Taxonomic Conventions are
Inadequate" (bottom p. 209 ­ top p. 210) in the cited paper.


On 3/17/13 2:35 PM, "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic at gmx.at<mailto:david.marjanovic at gmx.at>> wrote:

Points taken, but...

(I also don't think that most  biologists really adopt different
species concepts, though they tend to confuse operational criteria
with concepts).

Different criteria lead to different results. At our 2nd meeting (Yale
2006), somebody (Yannick Bertrand, I think) gave a presentation, saying
that there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico, depending
on what one means by "species". That's what I mean.
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn


_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:CPN at listserv.ohio.edu>
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Nico Cellinese, Ph.D.
Assistant Curator, Botany & Informatics
Joint Assistant Professor, Department of Biology

Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A.
Tel. 352-273-1979
Fax 352-846-1861
http://cellinese.blogspot.com/