Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

Community and Forum → Taxonomy. Classification → Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Likes: 3

31.01.2010 23:08, palvasru4ko

all these posts again prove the futility of this argument, as everyone continues to give arguments "for" and "against" which will lead to nothing, even if these are facts. I do not dispute the probability of a single type, but only the methodology, since sitting here on the forum you still will not achieve anything even if all(!!!) forumchane agree with you.

I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that "monographs" and "articles" in journals and various collections were invented to announce the facts. And the forums were designed to COMMUNICATE and share what cannot (YET CANNOT) be published in a monograph or collection... And the "futility of this argument" is obvious only to those who are not interested in this topic. Perhaps someone's arguments (including my own) look very "kutsi". But precisely because they are so "kutsi", they are listed ON the FORUM, and not sent to various "Vestniki..." and " Izvestia...". And the fact that some (for example, Boris Vitalyevich) also provide "iron" data from already NORMALLY published works is only a plus and honor to such people and praise. You can divide the forum into two parts - for the "poor" and for the "pros", but who will benefit from this? Those who do not want to read "nonsense" communicate in other ways. This is a FORUM, not a VAKOV publication.

This post was edited by palvasru4ko - 31.01.2010 23: 56

Likes: 7

31.01.2010 23:14, swerig

I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that "monographs" and "articles" in journals and various collections were invented to announce the facts. And the forums were designed to COMMUNICATE and share what cannot (YET CANNOT) be published in a monograph or collection... And the "futility of this argument" is obvious only to those who are not interested in this topic. Perhaps someone's arguments (including my own) look very "kutsi". But precisely because they are so "kutsi", they are listed ON the FORUM, and not sent to various "Vestniki..." and " Izvestia...". And the fact that some (for example, Boris Vitalyevich) also provide "iron" data from already NORMALLY published works is only a plus and honor to such people and praise. You can divide the forum into two parts - for the "poor" and for the "pros", but who will benefit from this? Those who do not want to read "nonsense" communicate in other ways. This is a FORUM, not a VAKOV publication.

+1. Super said!!!

Likes: 1

01.02.2010 0:19, mikee

some things are obvious and don't require proof. they are called axioms (this is how you apply this term). what is displayed in the photo you quoted is Apollo. if you think otherwise , you need to view it in large series, nomion in large series, and Phoebe in large series. and up to a pile of actius with jack and you can add epafus. this is so that you can determine them on the fly from the photo without specifying the dimensions. by the way, the quality of the photo is sufficient to accurately determine what is depicted on it - this is not a paralysis or hiponefele.

Stanislav, it wasn't about trust/distrust. Personally, I believe you and everyone else

, but, here, faith is more peculiar to religion, and it was about the fact that expert assessments should not be used in science. And to equate such estimates with axioms is, you know, strong! Axiomatics is at the very heart of any scientific research and it is always the most vulnerable point.

Likes: 1

01.02.2010 5:28, Yakovlev

The topic is certainly interesting. Herr Reisininger (our colleague with Frost and Ruchko, by the way, is a psychiatrist) I still haven't figured out the group, although I've made a book and collected a huge collection. She's in Bonn. This is probably one of the best collections of erate-giales in the world. And then there's Haugum, Gritschhuber, Verhulst. Probably, when we can genetically analyze old material, these collections will be very useful.
Hybridization doesn't mean anything. This is the most common phenomenon in nature. There are also a lot of intergeneric hybrids, even in animals. The statement that ksut and Maaki are like Negroid and Caucasian, well, I'm sorry... These are two well-defined genera Synopriceps and Achillides.
The lab will soon learn how to hybridize a turtle with a dragonfly. I think this is a matter of the near future.
The species has a set of morphological, ethological, genetic (NATURALLY!) and other features. Lukhtanov and Stradomsky are now doing a great and correct job working in this direction, but believe me, neither of them shies away from classical taxonomy. Let us recall Stradomsky's work on poliommatines, and we don't even need to talk about Lukhtanov!
Lukhtanov himself is very skeptical about the use of genetic analysis in taxonomy. It's hard for me to say why - unfortunately, I don't understand much here, but...
All research is useful, all of them will go into some kind of piggy bank of knowledge about nature. And thank God. But, believe me, to deny the classical taxonomy-this is only possible in youth. Out of inexperience, out of fanaticism.
Okay, I went to work...

Likes: 2

01.02.2010 10:49, Бабочник

Roman, I have not yet claimed that all Papilios are one species.
I just stressed that you need to have a clearer understanding of the concepts.
I don't think anyone will argue that taxonomy is still a mess. Because the description of species and the reduction into synonyms are often arbitrary. Precisely because there are no UNAMBIGUOUSLY clear criteria.
In general, the taxonomy itself is needed for what? To facilitate understanding of the mechanisms of evolution - the laws of development. The cornerstone here is isolation mechanisms, and without genetics, it is simply impossible to understand how this happens.
While there is no complete clarity, it is stupid to deny what is available, because this is at least some kind of support.
You just need to supplement your knowledge and look for deep patterns and, if anything, review them mercilessly (based only on the facts of the ust-no). If you don't even look in that direction. then what kind of science is this nafik? Just drive through the mountain valleys, catch insects, stick them on pins and describe this process in magazines and on the Internet? This is a purely laboratory activity turns out.
Here is an example with the same crocea and erate - it is considered that the species are different. By whom and on what grounds (actual)? only on those that it is written in tueva huche publications?

Likes: 1

Likes: 3

Likes: 4

Likes: 3

02.02.2010 12:57, Бабочник

"In describing the general
principles of classification, Aristotle, in chapter 3 of the first book, expressed the belief
that" one should make a division according to what belongs to the essence,
and is not in itself incidental,” i.e., incidental (accident). This
crucial point was later forgotten, and many biologists still
argue aimlessly about specific systems of organisms, without thinking about
the essence of the classification methods themselves as something superfluous. Darwinism is based
on the inability to distinguish between essence and accident, although Aristotle was able to do this.
Indeed, the idea of deriving evolution from the analysis of variability is meaningful
only if it is proved that changes are essential regularly enough;
however,no example of variability given by Darwin and after
him does not touch the essence of the organization of living things. We'll come back to this more than once."
*
I will only note that it is necessary to consider just the "essential" ones from this quote.
But apparently, for some people, these are the little things of life. There are enough" axioms " for your eyes.

02.02.2010 23:58, palvasru4ko

And here ambition, if some species without gene analysis can not be determined in ANY way.

Dmitry, I want to warn you right away – this is not a challenge or a provocation. I'm just expressing my opinion. Patsavatoe, rustic, but what is ... By the way, I'm "for peace"! (maybe it will be counted in the next world

). My colleagues have already suggested that you can't get very far on genetics alone, and there is something in this... Nature usually does not work on "one line of defense" against other people's genes. It is insured - different genitals, pheromones, biotopes, forage plants, phenology, and possibly the time of day when the species is most active (and why not?), etc. etc. etc. The fact that there are species that are most easily distinguished genetically - I agree. But this is FOR NOW! You can put it another way: other signs either haven't been found YET, or they are known, but they don't know how to use them. An example is Polyommatus elena Stradomsky et Arzanov, 1999. What's a bad example? A double of Icarus, but easily genetically different… The taxon was described, but Bolshakov (it seems to be fair) found fault... In addition, they described the genitals in more detail. Then we collected the material, followed the development at the preimaginal stages, and found distinctive criteria. Published it. And "genetics" of course looked... However, even without genetics, if you want, you can figure it out (thanks to the article by Stradomsky and Fomina, I think EVEN I can distinguish between caterpillars and pupae

). This is despite the fact that Boris Vitalievich himself also distinguishes Elena by her genitals. And he's not an alien! Just a person "stuffed" and that's it. This comes with experience... One hundred, two hundred, three hundred... thousand. We need time! And it's just him who is most often pitied! Therefore, we are going on an easier path - it's easier to pay 200 bucks for the finished analysis and not worry! And it sounds solid ("PASSPORT"!!!!) and you don't need to grow caterpillars, watch your genitals for hours...
Now about "ambition"… You may not agree, though… This is a forum where some people talk, others disagree. This is good and this is correct (I am "for"...). I'll try to explain my position. EVERYONE who knows something well has ambitions, but some of them are "unhealthy"... Ask - what does this have to do with butterflies? I'll explain. I consider the possession of a "butterfly with a passport" to be a very dubious and meaningless achievement. When a person is a "specialist", he does not need a" passport " of a butterfly, because he knows (for himself) that this is, for example, all the same "ELENA" and this is enough for him. He looked at the signs described in the literature and he is sure. But not for all "outsiders" it will be convincing. Which sounds cooler - "I have "Elena" ex larva from the type locality ", or "I have a CERTIFIED "Elena""? For an outsider, I think the second is" cooler". A butterfly with a passport is necessary for those who want the collection to be cool, SO THAT NO ONE FINDS FAULT. That's what I meant when I talked about ambitions, like " my collection is the most correct, all with passports, and you don't know what." NOTHING PERSONAL! I'm not trying to "tease" or denigrate anyone. Having a butterfly with a passport is like having a holotype or paratypes. Holotype (paratype) - COOL!!! After all, then exactly-THIS type (although, there are incidents). Plus, the standard series implies a limited number of instances. A RARITY!!! Why does a collector need a holotype (paratype)? Taxonomists need it. The collector needs a COPY. And you can exchange (or buy) a copy if you can't (or don't want to) go, and sometimes even from a typical area (or near it) - and you don't need a paratype for three hundred years. What does HAVING a paratype DO? Well, if you put your hand on your heart - WHO needs paratypes? TAXONOMISTS! Who is SERIOUSLY involved in taxonomy? After all, there are catastrophically FEW of them!!! It is the same with the "passport"... The possession of a butterfly with a passport is not mandatory, if only because if the taxon cannot be distinguished EXCEPT by genetic data, its validity will STILL be questioned from time to time. It is necessary to look for signs (no matter at what stage of development) by which you can distinguish a species without "genetics", if not by eye, then at least under binoculars... Otherwise, ALL reports, determinants, and articles are worthless. And why are they needed, if only genetics "rolls"? If Mr. Stradomsky distinguishes Elena from Icarus, I think others will also learn IF THEY WANT to. He (Stradomsky) does not make secrets from the signs – everything is described by him and in some detail.
I may have signed my own death warrant, but while I'm still alive, I want to note that those who want to engage in the" passport business "on the contrary, it is profitable to insist on the" mystery " of the species and incredible difficulties in identification. Given the stated price, this is steeper than trading paratypes (they are cheaper) or gynandromorphs (they are few).

P.S. On the kidneys chur not to beat!

Likes: 3

03.02.2010 4:37, bora

Pasha, I thought that our flood with Dmitry about the trade in certified copies would be taken as a joke by everyone (no one believed that Stanislav went to look for soap and rope that were in short supply in United Stace). No one is going to sell butterflies with "passports", they are too dear to the heart, and not to the wallet. In addition, these are museum exhibits. Well, I never sell anything from the material at all, but only give it away or, in extreme cases, change it. The meaning of "passporting" is only to try to obtain certain objective data that can help in taxonomy, phylogeny construction, and other issues where young biol. it can be applied competently. And again, getting a passport is not so easy - it did not come to the forensic geneticists, put them in the belly of a butterfly and a day later received a "passport"for money. Here it is necessary to implement this in a specialized institution that is sharpened for this (and there are primers, and all methods are rolled back for these objects, etc.). There can, of course, be snobs who need to be "in the stream and ahead of the whole planet" and they can not do without a passport for the collection. However, at this stage, it will be difficult for them to realize their ambitions, and for the dealers to satisfy them.
Now about morphology: undoubtedly, external manifestations of the inner essence (genetics) must be. The same Elena is easily identified by Oleg Polumordvinov-our Penzyak, and he was too lazy to look at the genitals and sent the material to me, but the level of his "hits" was actually 100%, and he only operated on the morphology of external signs and features of the butterfly's behavior in vivo during trapping. But Lavr Bolshakov did not find anything at home, but only for the reason that there is no Elena in the Tula region (or not found) - he also gave me material for rechecking. Hence his initial skepticism: how can you believe it if you haven't seen it yourself?

This post was edited by bora - 03.02.2010 05: 03

Likes: 5

03.02.2010 9:40, palvasru4ko

Pasha, I thought that our flood with Dmitry about the trade in certified copies would be taken as a joke by everyone (no one believed that Stanislav went to look for soap and rope that were in short supply in United Stace).

Boris Vitalievich, this was taken as a joke. I was just making excuses to Dmitry about the use of the word "ambition". The method is just being developed in the CIS. Maybe (I'm just guessing!) only a few people know how it (the method) works at all, most have to take everything on faith. Of course, you can cut money in such conditions, but this is pure commerce, which has nothing to do with science.

No one is going to sell butterflies with "passports", they are too dear to the heart, and not to the wallet. In addition, these are museum exhibits.

This is for now. When PCR, etc. these methods will become more accessible , and such suggestions will probably appear.

Well, I never sell anything from the material at all, but only give it away or, in extreme cases, change it.

Duc, I'm not accusing you of anything! On the contrary! You're not making a secret out of Elena! Everything is described, "Russian in white"! And signs, and habitats, etc. Only a lazy person will say that it is impossible to distinguish it. As for trade in general, my opinion is either trade or science. At least just because of the fact that these areas have completely different tasks. The exchange is akin to trading, although it seems to be more noble. I will make a reservation right away (otherwise they will beat you) - I mean trading on a large scale, and not "5 individuals of bellargus and 7 podalirii", that is, when the material is caught by tens or hundreds of individuals EXCLUSIVELY for sale. Such "comrades" and labels are sometimes forged, and places are kept secret (but they are sold for money and places). Some sell what is "idle". Here we are not talking about profit - they do not even "go to zero". I have NOTHING against trading - this is a personal matter for everyone. Everyone is their own boss.
By the way - I also never sold anything and I don't sell it:) .

The meaning of "passporting" is only to try to obtain certain objective data that can help in taxonomy, phylogeny construction, and other issues where young biol. it can be applied competently. And again, getting a passport is not so easy - it did not come to the forensic geneticists, put them in the belly of a butterfly and a day later received a "passport"for money.

again, this is for now. When amplifiers, sequencers and other equipment will cost not tens of thousands of pupaars, but only a couple of thousand- "dealers" will appear. I am sure. The first digital device released to the masses cost more than 20 thousand pupaars. And now? Eventually, PCR will also become cheaper. Just now, while still "cream" is removed.

But Lavr Bolshakov did not find anything at home, but only for the reason that there is no Elena in the Tula region (or not found) - he also gave me material for rechecking. Hence his initial skepticism: how can you believe it if you haven't seen it yourself?

Well, if it is there , it will find it someday!

There's only one way - search, search, search...
Just in case, I repeat - I did not want to offend ANYONE, denigrate or "spur" on a verbal duel. God forbid!

Likes: 2

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8