Perfect Organisms

From: Iza & Carol Goroff goroff at idcnet.com> on 2000.05.09 at 01:47:29(4552) Plato in the famous "Cave of the Shadows" section of the Republic said that the instances of what we see in the objects of our experience are like the shadows cast by the "truth". How that applies to an individual living being is that such is an inadequate representative of the principles defining the type. The principles are the truth which one should seek, looking past the specimen. Iza Goroff +More Whitewater Wisconsin

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2000.05.09 at 18:24:33(4555) Hear, hear, how true for natural kinds. How untrue for, say cultivars. Cultivars are "defined" and they are bred and maintained to keep exactly withing the definition of it. So a particular instant of a cultivar (a plant) may indeed be perfectly 100% according to the "truth" behind it. That is because the human mind in this case defined the "truth" and "created" images/instances of it by breeding. Wilbert +More ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2000 3:47 Subject: Perfect Organisms > Plato in the famous "Cave of the Shadows" section of the Republic said that the > instances of what we see in the objects of our experience are like the shadows > cast by the "truth". How that applies to an individual living being is that > such is an inadequate representative of the principles defining the type. The > principles are the truth which one should seek, looking past the specimen. > > Iza Goroff > Whitewater Wisconsin > > > >

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2000.05.10 at 00:09:51(4558) In a message dated Mon, 8 May 2000 9:47:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Iza & Carol Goroff writes: < +More such is an inadequate representative of the principles defining the type. The principles are the truth which one should seek, looking past the specimen. Hmmm...the closest thing I can think of to this in actual practice is the breed standard for purebred animals. Of course, no living Havana Brown cat ever matches perfectly the breed standard; it is judged by how closely it approaches that standard. The question is, does anything like this occur in talking of species? What I mean is, given the description of, say, Philodendron bipinnatifidum, do we compare a given specimen of that species to the decription, and judge how closely it approaches the "standard"? Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.05.10 at 03:12:21(4560) Subject: Re: Perfect Organisms > In a message dated Mon, 8 May 2000 9:47:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Iza & > Carol Goroff writes: +More > > < > such is an inadequate representative of the principles defining the type. The > principles are the truth which one should seek, looking past the specimen. > > Hmmm...the closest thing I can think of to this in actual practice is the > breed standard for purebred animals. Of course, no living Havana Brown cat > ever matches perfectly the breed standard; it is judged by how closely it > approaches that standard. The question is, does anything like this occur > in talking of species? What I mean is, given the description of, say, > Philodendron bipinnatifidum, do we compare a given specimen of that species > to the decription, and judge how closely it approaches the "standard"? > > Jason Hernandez This is a very interesting way to put it. I think that you are right, Jason, when you say a given plant is held up to the Type Specimen (the species description) and we see how close it comes to the 'standard'. The naming of a new plant is somewhat akin to searching a patent in that the literature must be searched to see if the plant in hand has ever been described before. Thus comparison to the 'Standard' or the type specimen is requisite to naming a new species. In some taxonomic works species descriptions are sometimes occompanied by dialogue concerning specimens which don't exactly match the Type, and the the differences are listed. Variations and abborant specimens may also be discussed. All of this means that you are right....we do check our plants against the standard of the Type. If a specimen varies enough from the type, a subspecies or variety may be named or even a new species. None of this of course has anything to do with 'perfection' (whatever that is). What it does have to do with is comparison, relativism, opinion (tempered with experience and knowledge) and the amount of agreement with others' comparisons etc. Perfection, the persuit of perfection, the various definitions of perfection and the notion that perfection is a "real" thing....... is perfectly silly :) BUT what else is there to do? Neil

From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2000.05.10 at 21:41:53(4562) In a message dated 05/09/2000 8:10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, StellrJ@aol.com writes: << Hmmm...the closest thing I can think of to this in actual practice is the +More breed standard for purebred animals. Of course, no living Havana Brown cat ever matches perfectly the breed standard; it is judged by how closely it approaches that standard. The question is, does anything like this occur in talking of species? What I mean is, given the description of, say, Philodendron bipinnatifidum, do we compare a given specimen of that species to the decription, and judge how closely it approaches the "standard"? >> And with that question you reveal what few people realize - a species is not a real entity but a STANDARD based upon the formal types designated at the time the name was published. It can get complicated because exceptions can occur (e.g., if the original types become "lost" over time) but a species is ONLY the holotype and the paratypes. From that time forward, specimens are compared to those types and an arbitrary decision is made as to which named species, if any, an "unknown" belongs to. Variations are legion so "best guesses" are all that is possible! Jim Langhammer

From: Neil Carroll zzamia at hargray.com> on 2000.05.11 at 01:23:46(4565) > And with that question you reveal what few people realize - a species is not > a real entity but a STANDARD based upon the formal types designated at the +More > time the name was published. It can get complicated because exceptions can > occur (e.g., if the original types become "lost" over time) but a species is > ONLY the holotype and the paratypes. >From that time forward, specimens are > compared to those types and an arbitrary decision is made as to which named > species, if any, an "unknown" belongs to. Variations are legion so "best > guesses" are all that is possible! > > Jim Langhammer Where I see where you are going with this I do not beleive that "arbitrary" and "best guess" are how taxonomists work. Many variations do occur within a species concept BUT let us not get to liberal with the species concept over vegatative variations or color variations. What seperates ( in the minds of human scientists) species is sex parts......flower structure, spore structure, or cone structure. All other characters are only useful in a limited, circumstantial way. For example Phyllostachys nigra (Black Bamboo) was described from a specimen that only happened to have black culmns. Later (after a rare flowering event) it was discovered that the Type specimen (that clone which was used to describe the species) was actually a black culmned varient. The majority of the individuals of this species are green culmned like most bamboo. The point being that any time you look at vegetative characters instead of sexual characters you tread on thin ice. The sexual structures are very consistant (realitivly) compared to the vegatative structures of any given species. This consistancy is not "arbitrary" or a best guess. Actually, now that I think of it.....some taxonomists are arbitrary and guessers..........of course none of these are aroid taxonomists. Neil

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2000.05.11 at 03:35:57(4566) Dear Neil, Unfortunately, plant taxonomy has been a guessing game most time of his history. Opinion has been the only way to deal with the diversity. Sometimes, you have to chose between the existence of 40 species or just a polymorphic one. Most of the process of naming and recognizing species are strongly subjective. The statistical (i.e. less subjective) sense of species is somewhat far from the reality today. We are doing our best, but it is not enough. We are using a Linnean-Aristotelic method in a Darwinian-Chaotic world. We really don't know what is a species... We are only trained guessers. Maybe what we call species are just communities of genes. Sometimes genes are transferred horizontally, migrating like they was living beings. Maybe they are the only living things around... Many natural hybrids are exactly like "good" species, and have no clear similarity with parental lineages. Maybe just a change in a few DNA base pairs can lead to a "new" genus. We don't know anything about morphogenesis. We have to be humble about our own knowledge. Probably we are living in the "middle-age" of plant systematics, and what we call 'modern' systematics are just like alchemy compared to modern chemistry and physics. The biodiversity wasn't "created" to be understood. It just exists!!! The complexity usually overwhelm our simplistic approach. It is just the beginning. Some of you can think I don't believe in my only job. Plant taxonomy is exactly what I do. I really believe we have to continue our work, because alchemy is considered a silly thing today, but its contribution to physics and chemistry was very important. We are working for future generations... One more thing: Sometimes, floral (sexual) parts are not so useful. In Spathicarpa, all species are almost the same in floral morphology. Meanwhile, S. lanceolata is helophytic and have lanceolate or oblong leaves, whereas S. hastifolia and S. gardneri have leaves that are cordate to hastate, and the plants are always geophytes. There is only one general rule in plant systematics: There is no general rule!!! Best wishes, Eduardo. +More >Where I see where you are going with this I do not beleive that "arbitrary" >and "best guess" are how taxonomists work. Many variations do occur within >a species concept BUT let us not get to liberal with the species concept >over vegatative variations or color variations. What seperates ( in the >minds of human scientists) species is sex parts......flower structure, >spore >structure, or cone structure. All other characters are only useful in a >limited, circumstantial way. > >For example Phyllostachys nigra (Black Bamboo) was described from a >specimen >that only happened to have black culmns. Later (after a rare flowering >event) it was discovered that the Type specimen (that clone which was used >to describe the species) was actually a black culmned varient. The majority >of the individuals of this species are green culmned like most bamboo. The >point being that any time you look at vegetative characters instead of >sexual characters you tread on thin ice. The sexual structures are very >consistant (realitivly) compared to the vegatative structures of any given >species. This consistancy is not "arbitrary" or a best guess. > >Actually, now that I think of it.....some taxonomists are arbitrary and >guessers..........of course none of these are aroid taxonomists. > >Neil > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2000.05.13 at 00:17:20(4567) In a message dated 05/10/2000 11:37:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, edggon@hotmail.com writes: << Unfortunately, plant taxonomy has been a guessing game most time of his +More history. >> Eduardo, Beautifully and thoughtfully said throughout. Congratulations! Jim Langhammer

From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 2000.05.13 at 02:56:52(4569) In a message dated 05/10/2000 9:24:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zzamia@hargray.com writes: << Where I see where you are going with this I do not beleive that "arbitrary" +More and "best guess" are how taxonomists work. Many variations do occur within a species concept BUT let us not get to liberal with the species concept over vegatative variations or color variations. What seperates ( in the minds of human scientists) species is sex parts......flower structure, spore structure, or cone structure. All other characters are only useful in a limited, circumstantial way. >> Neil, That may be the way you wish it were but I assure you that you are wrong. Firstly, I am a botanical systematist. Secondly, I did not say, "that "arbitrary" and "best guess" are how taxonomists work." You as an individual must make an arbitrary and "best guess" as to the species name you wish to employ for your specimen in hand. The taxonomists "name" the plants which have been systematically studied to determine affinities. The fact remains that the species is only exemplified by the originally assigned type series. Later investigators may "broaden" or even "restrict" the plants they wish to assign to that species but it will be done arbitrarily and at times unilaterally - sometimes without the support of peers. In the case of Phyllostachys nigra, the type will forever be the black-culmed variant - all that has changed is that today the green-culmed specimens are considered conspecific. Jim Langhammer

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.