Linnaeus' Legacy Up

At the Life Photo Meme! Go check out all the taxonomic goodness.

On the Failure of Names

There is so much I could say about Karen's latest post, but I will defer to her and Mr. Prosek. Here are a few quotes I like:

"I began to understand that species were less static than the fathers of modern taxonomy—those like Carl Linnaeus—once believed. That nature was static and classifiable was an idea perpetuated by the natural history museum (repository for dead nature), the zoo (repository for living nature), and the book (repository for thoughts and images related to nature). These mediums were all distillations of nature, what individuals of authority deemed an appropriate cross section to present to the public. None had adequately represented Nature—at once chaotic, multifarious, and interconnected."

"Naming gives us the illusion that nature is fixed, but it is as fluid as the language used to describe it."

"I was conflicted—I loved the names that had first led me to recognize the existence of diversity (golden trout, Oncorhynchus aguabonita; blueback
trout, Salvelinus oquassa), but as I learned more I wanted to throw away the names, step beyond those constraints, in order to preserve a sense of wonder that I had felt from an early age."

Needless to say I will be putting in an order. While I am at it, I may just buy a few of his other beautiful books for my son and I to read!

New Aphid Species from eBay Purchase

Wow, biologists need to peruse eBay more! I remember ChrisM talking about this before with regard to sea stars. This time a professor purchased a small piece of amber with an insect in it form eBay for 20 pounds, BBC reports:

"Dr Harrington sent the specimen to Professor Ole Heie, a fossil aphid expert in Denmark.

"He discovered that it was something that hadn't been described before," Dr Harrington explained.

The insect itself is 3-4mm long and is encased in a 40-50 million-year-old piece of amber about the size of a small pill.

"I had thought it would be rather nice to call it Mindarus ebayi," said Dr Harrington.

"Unfortunately using flippant names to describe new species is rather frowned upon these days."

Instead, Professor Heie named the new species after Dr Harrington.

"It's not uncommon to find insects in amber... but I'm not sure that one has turned up on eBay that has been undiscovered before. It's a rather unusual route to come by [a new species]," the researcher, based at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire, explained.

He said the insect would have fed on a tree called Pinetes succinifer which is itself now long since extinct."

Thank FSM that it was not named after eBay LOL.

Colbert Picks Spider Number...

... You'll have to watch to find out!




Hat Tip to Rod Page. Aptostichus stephencolberti is described in the latest issue of Systematic Biology(DOI:10.1080/10635150802302443).

Linneaus Legacy #10

A carnival on taxonomy and biodiversity! Up at A DC Birding Blog, complete with ostracods (or is that ostracodes?), snails, birds and much more!

Best Species Etymology Evah!

In a new species description for an interstitial water mite Antonia G. Valdecasas tells it like it is. He "gets it" and has the cajones to put it out there in the published literature. I've said it once and I'll say it again, you can't judge every researcher using the same citation index, especially when it has been proven time and again to be worthless.

Etymology. Vagabundia comes from the Spanish word ‘vagabundo’ that means ‘wanderer’. It is a feminine substantive; sci refers to Science Citation Index. We pointed out some time ago (Valdecasas et al. 2000) that the popularity of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as a measure of ‘good’ science has been damaging to basic taxonomic work. Despite statements to the contrary that SCI is not adequate to evaluate taxonomic production (Krell 2000), it is used routinely to evaluate taxonomists and prioritize research grant proposals. As with everything in life, SCI had a beginning and will have an end. Before it becomes history, I dedicate this species to this sociological tool that has done more harm than good to taxonomic work and the basic study of biodiversity. Young biologists avoid the ‘taxonomic trap’ or becoming taxonomic specialists (Agnarsson & Kuntner 2007) due to the low citation rate of strictly discovery-oriented and interpretative taxonomic publications. Lack of recognition of the value of these publications, makes it difficult for authors to obtain grants or stable professional positions.

Valdecasas AG (2008) Confocal microscopy applied to water mite taxonomy with the description of a new genus of Axonopsinae (Acari, Parasitengona, Hydrachnidia) from Central America. Zootaxa 1820:41-48 (download paper here)

Hat tip to John Wilkins.

Linnaeus' Legacy #9: Classifying the Classifiers

Mr. Slybird has the latest and greatest Linneaus' Legacy carnival up at Biological Ramblings. It is an awesome blog carnival highlighting taxonomy, systematics, and biodiversity posts. They are looking for hosts for next month and beyond. Sign up and be a part of history in the making!

Work With An Invert! - Freshwater Gastropod Systematics

PhD position - molecular systematics and evolution of freshwater gastropods

A three year PhD position is available at the Museum of Natural History Berlin in a research project on the molecular systematics and evolution of viviparid snails. Funding is provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Viviparids are a species-rich and phenotypically diverse group of freshwater gastropods with an almost worldwide distribution and a long fossil record. We want to use this group to address issues in evolutionary biology such as the evolution of morphological disparity, biogeography or ancient lake radiations. A major component of the project will be the reconstruction of viviparid phylogeny using both molecular and morphological techniques. The geographic focus will be on Asian taxa.

We are seeking a student with a MSc or equivalent degree (diploma) in biology. The successful candidate should have experience with techniques in molecular and/or morphological systematics and should have a strong interest in biogeography and evolutionary biology. Good communication skills, the ability to work independently and the willingness to conduct fieldwork in South and Southeast Asia are essential.

We offer an intellectually stimulating research environment in one of Europe’s largest natural history museums with well-equipped state-of-the-art lab facilities.

To apply, please send an e-mail application including CV, names and addresses of two referees and a brief letter explaining why you are interested in this PhD position by June 20 to Thomas von Rintelen: thomas.rintelen@museum.hu-berlin.de. Please quote the job reference number DR/046/08 in the subject line.

Ants, DNA Barcoding and Open Access

This week, as Alex Wild put it, Brian Fisher and Alex Smith "break the PLoS taxonomy barrier". In my last post, I evangelized and pontificated on the benefits of open access publishing in PLoS for taxonomy. That in itself is a ground-breaking accomplishment, but the paper by Fisher and Smith is interesting in own right. They report on ants in the Malagasy region from 2 genera, Anochetus and Odontomachus, and describe 3 species new to science. Additionally they evaluate the efficacy of DNA Barcoding as a "tool to accelerate species identification and description".

Of Ants and Islands

Madagascar is a unique island off the eastern coast of Africa with a highly endemic fauna, meaning that many of the creatures found there are found no where else on this planet. Fisher and Smith also report the first records from the nearby islands of Seychelles and Comoros. Using 500 individuals from 6,000 leaf litter samples, 4,000 pitfall traps, and 8,000 additional hand collecting events over a 14 years period, they were able to group together worker, queen and male castes. The descriptions are fine and document the features and variation in morphology well. One criticism I have is they contain no information that I could see on the etymology of the new species. Etymology is where the author describes what the name means. For the 3 new species described in the genus Anochetus, each is given a specific epithet honoring an individual, a Mr./Ms. Bolton, Goodman and Patterson. Who these people are that should get immortalized in ants we shall never know.

DNA Barcoding and Species Assessment

While the description and discussion on the ants' distributions are important for biodiversity studies, the authors spend a good deal of the paper discussing the efficacy of DNA barcoding in helping to delineate taxa. DNA barcoding is using a standard gene, typically the mitochondrial COI gene, as a marker to identify a species. This is useful when there is a specimen voucher with a known barcoded sequence to match unknown to. There is a good deal of controversy surrounding its use in taxonomy. Many taxonomists agree that describing species based only on a short snippet of DNA is bad practice.

Fisher and Smith use DNA barcoding on their ants for two reasons. The first is group the different castes together. Ants are social insects separated into workers, queens and males. Some ant societies have even more castes, such as sanitary workers and fungal farmers. Because the different ant castes are morphologically different from one another, it is sometimes difficult to tell closely related species apart, especially if they co-occur in a similar location. The authors assert that DNA barcoding was the "principal source of data" that group together different castes, sizes and genders.

The other reason is to rapidly assess species identification. Fisher and Smith analyzed all the collections of a genus. Those showing a high degree of sequence divergence, i.e. the outliers, were "culled" from the analysis for morphological scrutiny. Traditionally, each individual would have to have measurements and notes taken on the morphological characters of interest. This is an extremely time-consuming process, but amplify that to 500 individuals of ants. The barcode method actually allowed them find the interesting individuals right away. This might not work for every taxon, but considering how affordable DNA sequencing has become this practice might take off for large collections. This will be extremely important as many biodiversity inventories are ongoing or coming to a close in the near future.

Another use for DNA barcoding brought up by Fisher and Smith is hypothesis generation. Hopefully most people will agree me (and the study's authors) that species are testable hypotheses. Like any scientific hypothesis, it is subject to refinement with new data. The barcode data helped Fisher and Smith to generate testable hypotheses regarding within-species divergence, several interesting aspects of biogeography (see page 20, last paragraph of first column for list) and female-limited dispersal capabilities in species with wingless queens.

I'll let Fisher and Smith have the final word:

"Nothing can replace the countless hours of careful observation necessary to understand variation and to delimit species boundaries. However, the addition of sequence data provides a means to create short-term results from inventories and at the same time generate data helpful to taxonomists. For taxonomists, sequencing highlights the specimens most deserving of focused study."

Disclaimer: Brian Fisher was my Evolution teaching assistant at UC-Davis. Although he is unlikely to remember me anyways, but the contents of this post are not in any way an artifact of this coincidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher, B.L. & Smith, M.A. (2008). A Revision of Malagasy Species of Anochetus Mayr and Odontomachus Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). PLoS ONE, 3(5), e1787. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001787

SOS and Inverts in the the Top 10

The International Institute for Species Exploration (IISE) released their first ever State of Species report on Friday (to be issued annually on May23rd, the birthdate of Linnaeus). Pouring through the journal reports and monographs from 2006, the IISE found 16,969 new species (not counting any new microbes) described in that year. Invertebrates accounted for 13,900 of the 14,912 new animal species. That's 93% of new animal species and 82% of total new species described in 2006. (And, yes, insects accounted for over half the new species by themselves)

They also announced their Top Ten new species described in 2007. Three inverts made the cut of the selection committee of 12 experts from around the world headed by Dr. Janine Caira of UCONN.

The selected inverts in the top ten are:

At #9 there is Megaceras briansaltini, a rhinoceros beetle from Peru described as being a case of nature imitating art, as this beetle bears a "striking resemblance" (save the color) to Dim from Pixar's animated hit "A Bug's Life".

Ratcliffe, B.C. 2007. A remarkable new species of Megaceras from Peru (Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: Oryctini). The “Dim Effect”: Nature mimicking art. The Coleopterists Bulletin 61(3): 463-467. DOI:10.1649/0010-065X(2007)61[463:ARNSOM]2.0.CO;2

The deadly Malo kingi appears at #8, this Irukandji (a type of Cubozoan jelly) is named after one of its most famous fatal encounter victims, Robert King. So exactly how does one study a tiny, highly lethal, almost transparent marine jelly anyway??? Any cubozoa experts out there?

Gershwin, L.A. 2007. Malo kingi: A new species of Irukandji jellyfish (Cnidaria: Cubozoa: Carybdeida), possibly lethal to humans, from Queensland, Australia. Zootaxa 1659: 55-68.

Crawling in at #3 is Desmoxytes purpurosea (a.k.a. shocking pink dragon millipede), showing Diplopoda's brighter side in a bright coral pink. It doesn't hide it either, resting in the open and on vegetation during the day in its native Thailand.

H. Enghoff, C. Sutcharit & S. Panha. 2007. The shocking pink dragon millipede, Desmoxytes purpurosea, a colourful new species from Thailand (Diplopoda: Polydesmida: Paradoxosomatidae). Zootaxa 1563: 31-36.

Hopefully this annual release will continue. Considering the various Census of Life projects under way, the job of the compilers will not be easy! Of course, the top ten list is highly subjective, as they readily admit. Marine life, in addition to inverts in general, seem woefully under represented with one marine invert (malo kingi) and one marine vertebrate, the electric ray (representing an entirely new genus, named after a vacuum cleaner - Electrolux addisoni).

Maybe we should team up with DSN and pick a top ten new marine species at some point. Kevin?

Linnaeus' Legacy #6

All the great taxonomic fun of the past month bundled into one nice tidy carnival! Jim at From Archaea to Zeaxanthol has the latest Linneaus' Legacy carnival.

Quote of the Day!

"It is more proper to call starfish “sea stars”. Not only do they not live in the sky with stars but they aren’t fish. They are echinoderms. So from now on you can call them sea stars and avoid a lot of confusion."
- Joel from the Oceanographic Research Vessel Alguita blog

Hey guys, keep up the good work on our high seas!

Is the World of Taxonomy Ready for PLoS Systematics?

Taxonomy has historically been relegated to the back alleys of the publishing world. In-house museum journals, obscure regional or specialty publications and even more obscure foreign language academy reports have hidden many species descriptions, revisions and monographs from the eyes of interested biologists. Not to say this is the only reason for current crisis in taxonomy (see Rodman & Cody 2003), but it certainly contributes. The hard work and insurmountable dedication of the taxonomist to furthering their group of interest should be rewarded and not locked away for the other 5 people in the world working on that genus of organism. Ecologists rely on species descriptions to compare the fauna they find in their studies with the published literature. The imperative nature of correct identifications of species cannot be understated in the medical, infectious disease, and parasitology literature. Without a doubt, quality taxonomic research is invaluable, in high demand and highly underappreciated by funding agencies and other scientists, even those who rely on such work (PEET not withstanding)

The lack of visibility of taxonomic research and the failure to make systematics as a whole relevant to the everyday lives of people has been a burden on the community. Much of the work is tedious yet vital to biodiversity studies, medicine and biotechnology. IrregardlessIrrespective of how one chooses to define a species, the species debate, the issue of perception is pervasive in this field. Many taxonomists are made to feel inferior to their colleagues doing experimental work who bring in much larger grants. The truth of the matter is that taxonomy is not a profitable venture for academic institutions why rely in part on the money they skim off of grants. It is a traditionally an inexpensive field, even with the use of molecular tools to aid in phylogenetic reconstructions. You can easily get by with a microscope, computer and digital camera. DNA extractions are relatively inexpensive and you can send the DNA product off to get analyzed elsewhere affordably, not needing to purchase expensive sequencing equipment.

Taxonomists need to improve the visibility and relevance of the field to ensure a continued, or at the least renewed, interest for the study of species, either from a theoretical, philosophical or practical framework. One way to contribute to increasing the visibility of taxonomic research is to publish in Open Access (OA). Several studies have shown there to be a citation advantage in OA papers (Eysenbach 2006). Zootaxa has taken the initiative in the taxonomy world by offering to publish any peer-reviewed taxonomic work free of charge for subscriber access and $20/page for OA. Other taxonomic "niche" journals exist with various financial differences, but have yet to attain the reputation of Zootaxa to my knowledge. But it is my own feeling that Zootaxa is only known well among other taxonomists, with the majority of other beneficiaries either unable to obtain articles because the bulk of the articles are locked behind the subscriber wall. This also has the effect of making less text available for search engines, such as Google Scholar.

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) may help to alleviate part of the problems of visibility. They have grown to represent the standard in OA publishing and have a successful business model. Their success among scientists can measured by the fact that between all their publications they are PLoS ONE alone is publishing on average 50 high quality papers per week. This is higher than journal, even the weekly big names. It is clear that their model is successful and scientists are actively seeking them out to publish their research. This is a clear argument in favor of wide dissemination (Chapter 3, Recommendation 8A of the Code):

"Authors have a responsibility to ensure that new scientific names, nomenclatural acts, and information likely to affect nomenclature are made widely known. This responsibility is most easily discharged by publication in appropriate scientific journals or well-known monographic series and by ensuring that new names proposed by them are entered into the Zoological Record."

PLoS can make nomenclatural acts widely disseminated by providing them free of charge and out in open for all interested individuals with computer access. The steadily increasing popularity of PLoS ensures taxonomic work reaches a wide audience with a broad range of backgrounds. For instance, if you are working on parasites in humans and are describing a new species of muscle tissue boring pathogenic nematode you can tag the article as "medicine", "Nematoda", "New species", "Systematics", "Pathogen", etc. to reach audiences in non-parasitology fields.

Why would a taxonomist want to reach non-taxonomic areas of science? Citations are low in taxonomy. Species descriptions are read, the names are used in many publications, hopefully with author and year, but somehow the paper describing said species remains out of the list of references. This means indexing services like PubMed and Web of Science miss the uncited species descriptions in the tangled web of cross-reference. For example, Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830, should be the most cited paper in recorded history due to the amount of work on this model organism. So what of biodiversity studies with hundreds of species? This does pose a problem. Nowadays, there is supplementary online material and the citations could be referred there so long as they are properly indexed and the gods who fiddle around with such productivity metrics recognize these citations.

Another argument to get your work widely read is that universities aren't appearing to hire people to do basic taxonomy anymore. They need another hook, perhaps molecular evolution or ecology. Even museums are tending to hire individuals with outside specialties. I'm not sure where the future of taxonomy may lie, but larger questions need to be addressed than just what is out there. Taxonomic research helps in many areas of biological science. The more people that know of your work, the more opportunities may be to collaborate on new projects with different directions, making you a more viable applicant. Besides who wants to invest so much into something only to see it hidden away forever?

Are there any barriers to publishing a species description with PLoS? Yes, Chapter 3 of the Code, Article 8.6 states:

"Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself."

So species names published in an electronic format are only valid if depositions of the article in question are made at a minimum 5 public institutions. These can be public, university and museum libraries. This barrier is easily overcome if PLoS makes it easy on the authors by forging an agreement 5 institutions to deposit papers in their collections. I would recommend the Smithsonian, the Field Museum and any 3 universities in the U.S. The authors can even archive a paper in their own university's or museum's libraries. Conveniently, PLoS does offer itself in print version for those interested in deforestation.

Another barrier is the high cost of OA publishing. Currently, PLoS ONE charges $1250 for a research article, though they do offer fee waivers to authors who cannot the steep price. For the average working taxonomist, the price would need to drop to at most $600. This is a price I was quoted for a small american journal for a 20 something page description of a new shrimp with COI phylogeny. It was actually twice that, but I can some page charges waived for being a society member. My coauthor and I were shocked when we received the estimate. For almost the same price I could have published OA somewhere else. The costs are especially prohibitive to taxonomists from the developing world. Many of them have done a superb job and picked up the slack after north american taxonomy slipped away because of poor funding. Yet their funds are even less than ours in most cases.

In conclusion, OA publishing offers taxonomists higher visibility, potentially higher citations and a broader readership. The barriers to electronic publishing can be easily overcome with a little initial work. PLoS is the leader in OA publishing and has a strong reputation to maintain among the non-OA or hybrid journals that exist out there, thus the quality of research coming from PLoS journals is high. In particular PLoS ONE, offers several features attractive to taxonomists and idealistic scientists like myself. Their system allows any user to annotate, comment and respond to articles becoming a part of the permanent record of that article. This post-review system allows articles to become a conversation. If another taxonomist were to discover a new character 10 years after the publication of a species name, they could go that article and make an annotation or comment on that article that could then be considered by all other readers. Taxonomists have little to lose and everything to gain by publishing with PLoS and choosing OA.
____________________________________________________________________

Eysenbach, G. (2006) Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biology, 4, e157.

Meigen, J.W. (1830) Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligenInsekten, Bd. 6. F.W. Forstmann, Aachen.

Rodman, J. E., and J. H. Cody (2003) The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’s Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Syst. Biol. 52:428–435.

Quote of the Day

"Step 1. Realizing and embracing the enjoyment of nature.

This is the critical first step in the process. If one does not like nature, there is definitely no future for that person in taxonomy. Most who fail at this Step ultimately become accountants." 

- Neil Evenhuis (2007) Helping solve the "other" taxonomic impediment: completing the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic nirvana. Zootaxa, 1407, 3-12. Open Access!

Linnaeus' Legacy #4: Darwin Month Extravaganza!

"the economy of nature"

species are "alloted places" in nature

"everyone's war against everyone"

These were concepts familiar to Darwin by the time he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. They influenced his thinking are solidified within his writings. Yet, these are not Darwin's own words, nor his own ideas. Other's works weighed heavily on Charles Darwin from Thomas Malthus and Gilbert White to Charles Lyell and William Paley. The words, or ideas, are none of their own as well. These words and concepts belong to Carolus Linnaeus, the namesake of this carnival and founder of taxonomy.

Linnaeus had a very ecological view on organisms and their place in nature. He was particular interested in reproduction and had a vivid imagery associated with writings when describing bisexual plants. "Nine men in the bride's chamber, with one woman" describes the 9 stamens surrounding a singular pistil on a flower. Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandather, was similarly vivid and poetic. Darwin apparently read translations of Oeconomia Naturae and Politia Naturae in the 1840s, though I am not sure if he read the Systema, but he certainly would have been aware of it and followed Linnaeus' taxonomic guidelines. This month brings you posts in the traditions of Linnaeus and Darwin.

Deep Sea News reports on the discovery of an entirely new order of fish.

"Tube-eye is a strange fish indeed. It possesses a pair of telescopic eyes that lie anteriorly when not feeding. During feeding, the head is oriented up and back and the mouth is moved forward. The mouth cavity is balloonable and can greatly expand its size (38X). This creates negative pressure and provides suction for capturing prey."

In true linnaean fashion, the Systema Brachyurom is out!! An amazing reference for identifying every brachyuran, or true crab, IN. THE. WORLD. Can't plug this one enough! I've already downloaded it (its open access!!!) and flipped through it. It is well put together with clear photos to aid in identification. Check it out for free courtesy of the Raffles Museum in Singapore.

10,000 Birds has an interview with David Ringer, creator of Birdstack. Find about more about the bird listing website that has the "potential to become the web standard for listing". Mike also encourages bloggers who discuss natural history and ecology to register their blogs on the Nature Blogs Network.

What are the mysteries of the platypus? Oh let me count the ways... A 3lb Monkey Brain describes how the fossil record elucidates this mystery, it might not be the one your thinking of. Browse his blog for my systematic fun!

The Catalogue of Organisms reports on breaking news that will Shock and Awe™ the genetics world. Should Drosophila melangaster be maintained despite obvious paraphyly?? Or should it become the wine-cellar fly of Linnaeus? Or will the evil geneticists win because of their laziness to accept the rules of nomenclature?

A character analysis of moray eels is discussed over Malaria, Bedbugs, Sea Lice and Sunset. Every Monday, Rick discusses a species on moray eel on his series That's a Moray Monday. Its turning out to be a online field guide! He hints at a cool new species of Moray for the next Monday's edition so stay tuned to the blogdial.

John Lynch tells us that a new beetle is named after Roy Orbison and giant elephant shrew was recently described. Laelaps also talks about the Grey-Faced Sengi in more detail. Pondering Pikaia picks up on this amazing discovery too. While at Living the Scientific Life, a new subspecies of bird was discovered in Nepal and a giganormous rodent found in New York City modern day Uruguay.

Greg Laden discusses the ascent of cat breeds (with a hilarious LOLcats to boot). In thinking about the number of species of flies (not cats), The Questionable Authority has a quiz about "How many different species should these three populations be grouped in, and why?" Tune in on Monday to find out the answer!


Finally, last year Darren Naish at Tetrapod Zoology helped to blow the whistle on inappropriate activity in the field of palaeontology. Mike Taylor has the latest from Aetogate. Darren updates us on this issue and the press it has received. Christopher at the Catalogue asks what would the ICZN do about the issue? Adventures in Ethics and Science discusses the ethical ramifications of this and then explains why the "is this really that important?" attitude is detrimental, then wonders which field of science has the most integrity problems. Additional coverage is provided by The Ethical Palaeontologist, Cryptomundo, Dinochick Blogs, Laelaps, Gene Expression, The Open Source Palaeontologist, Slashdot, One Big Lab, A Blog Around the Clock, All My Faults Are Stress-Related, Dinochick again, Palaeoblog, A Three-Pound Monkey Brain, Stephen Sorrell, The Reptipage. As you can see, this is a very important issue and each blog offers their unique perspective on this and the support for ethics in taxonomy and palaeontology is overwhelming.

A Day of Mourning for Ernst Mayr

via Darwin's Bulldog...

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of Ernst Mayr death. He will always go down as one of the greats. Click over to Dispersal of Darwin for more (the link above).

On The "Fly of the Wine Cellars"

These aren't my own words, but that of Dr. Thompson on the TAXACOM listserve. But, I do think the information is very interesting, something I didn't know of before and wanted to share. The original message is at the TAXACOM online archives.

"What is more important are the kinds of flies that Linnaeus knew. The most curious in respect to history, is Musca cellaris, described on page 597 [in the Systema Naturae]. Today this name is forgotten due to the fear of geneticists who don't want to recognize the fact that Linnaeus knew Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen 1830). Linneaus loved wine and beer, and described the little flies which are attracted to fermented fruits as Musca cellaris, the fly of the wine cellars. Later Kirby and Spence put this species in its own genus, Oinopota (from the Greek for wine drinker). So by the Official rules of Nomenclature (ICZN) Linnaeus never knew Drosophila nor the species was unknown to the authors of the first text in Entomology."

Curiosly, AnimalBase reports the name Musca cellaris as available. Meaning that it is what is referred to as a nomen dubium ("doubtful name") in taxonomy. Though Meigen described Drosophila melanogaster in 1830, in the 1881 the article How to make vinegar in The Household Cyclopedia of General Information referred to the vinegar fly as Musca cellaris. Did the author recognize Linnaeus' priority or was he or she working under the opinion that Drosophila melanogaster and Musca cellaris were separate taxa? Granted this was before the rise of genetics. It was the geneticists who supressed the more appropriate linnaean name in favor of Drosophila melangaster, whom they had grown to know and love. Drosophila means "lover of dew". I think I prefer a happy drunk fly instead.

*Update: Christopher Taylor has another perspective of fly name conundrums. RPM also weighs in.

Quote of the Day

"As obfuscatory as this may seem, comparative biologists must not make inferences from a species name without consulting the systematic literature to see what patterns of variation the name purports to represent."
- Mishler, B. D., & M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology 31:491-503.

Quote of the Day

"The Biological Species Concept advocates a chauvinistic perception of diversity, one obviously in discord with known, natural, biological systems. Given that all asexual species are disregarded and that allopatric lineages, regardless of their sexual tendencies, are only considered subspecies, biodiversity recognized under this concept is severely abridged."
- Wiley, E. O., & R. L. Mayden. 2000. A defense of the evolutionary species concept, Pages 198-208 in Q. D. Wheeler, and R. Meier, eds. Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. New York, Colombia University Press.

Quote of the Day

"The discrepancy between the histories of populations and the histories of genes within those populations is the biggest problem afflicting the phylogenetics species concepts."
- Coyne, J. A., & H. A. Orr. 2004, Speciation. Sunderland, Sinauer Associates, Inc.