| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2004 07:38:17 AM |
| Object: |
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly |
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: September 28, 2004
In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for
cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an
unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known
butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different
species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding.
Daniel Janzen
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Daniel%20Janzen%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Daniel+Janzen%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Daniel+Janzen%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Daniel%20Janzen&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly |
28 Sep 2004 08:20:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:38:17 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
wrote:
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: September 28, 2004
In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for
cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an
unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known
butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different
species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding.
In an earlier exchange about numbers of species, Larry Moran
speculated:
However, it's common to name a new species of insect whenever a slight
morphological variant is discovered. As a general rule there's no
serious attempt to discover whether the "new" species interbreeds
with its close relatives.
Here's the question. How many species of insect would there be if
we applied the same rules to insects that we apply to humans? How
many would there be if we used the same rules we use for birds?
I responded: (In part)
Probably just a few less
And Larry came back:
I'd guess about two million .... is that what you mean by a "few.?
Well, here is the test. Apparently there is likely to be several
times MORE species!
The Janzen & Hebert paper is supposed to be in today's (Sept 28, 2004)
PNAS but I can't find it at that web site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly |
28 Sep 2004 05:52:43 PM |
|
|
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:38:17 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
wrote:
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: September 28, 2004
In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for
cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an
unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known
butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different
species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding.
In an earlier exchange about numbers of species, Larry Moran
speculated:
However, it's common to name a new species of insect whenever a slight
morphological variant is discovered. As a general rule there's no
serious attempt to discover whether the "new" species interbreeds
with its close relatives.
Here's the question. How many species of insect would there be if
we applied the same rules to insects that we apply to humans? How
many would there be if we used the same rules we use for birds?
I responded: (In part)
Probably just a few less
And Larry came back:
I'd guess about two million .... is that what you mean by a "few.?
Well, here is the test. Apparently there is likely to be several
times MORE species!
The Janzen & Hebert paper is supposed to be in today's (Sept 28, 2004)
PNAS but I can't find it at that web site.
At a meeting of systematists discussing the species concept, someone
noted that using the diagnostic phylogenetic concept (smallest
diagnosable groups) there would be three to ten times as many bird
species as are currently named. One of the authors of that concept said,
"So what? If there are that many diagnoseable groups, there are that
many species? We want our classifications to reflect biological
reality!" Looks like this is becoming true...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly |
28 Sep 2004 06:12:17 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:38:17 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
wrote:
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: September 28, 2004
In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for
cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an
unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known
butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different
species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding.
In an earlier exchange about numbers of species, Larry Moran
speculated:
However, it's common to name a new species of insect whenever a slight
morphological variant is discovered. As a general rule there's no
serious attempt to discover whether the "new" species interbreeds
with its close relatives.
Here's the question. How many species of insect would there be if
we applied the same rules to insects that we apply to humans? How
many would there be if we used the same rules we use for birds?
I responded: (In part)
Probably just a few less
And Larry came back:
I'd guess about two million .... is that what you mean by a "few.?
Well, here is the test. Apparently there is likely to be several
times MORE species!
The Janzen & Hebert paper is supposed to be in today's (Sept 28, 2004)
PNAS but I can't find it at that web site.
At a meeting of systematists discussing the species concept, someone
noted that using the diagnostic phylogenetic concept (smallest
diagnosable groups) there would be three to ten times as many bird
species as are currently named. One of the authors of that concept said,
"So what? If there are that many diagnoseable groups, there are that
many species? We want our classifications to reflect biological
reality!" Looks like this is becoming true...
Which? Classifications starting to reflect biological reality? And what
aspects of biological reality? In fact many of the currently recognized
bird species consist of multiple biological species. And a great many
more than that probably would if the populations were in sympatry and we
could do such tests.
I'm dubious about the ability to recognize new species on the basis of
bar codes, by the way. But let's see what the paper says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly |
28 Sep 2004 06:34:11 PM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:38:17 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
wrote:
DNA Bar Coding Uncovers Secrets of Costa Rican Butterfly
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: September 28, 2004
In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for
cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an
unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known
butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different
species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding.
In an earlier exchange about numbers of species, Larry Moran
speculated:
However, it's common to name a new species of insect whenever a slight
morphological variant is discovered. As a general rule there's no
serious attempt to discover whether the "new" species interbreeds
with its close relatives.
Here's the question. How many species of insect would there be if
we applied the same rules to insects that we apply to humans? How
many would there be if we used the same rules we use for birds?
I responded: (In part)
Probably just a few less
And Larry came back:
I'd guess about two million .... is that what you mean by a "few.?
Well, here is the test. Apparently there is likely to be several
times MORE species!
The Janzen & Hebert paper is supposed to be in today's (Sept 28, 2004)
PNAS but I can't find it at that web site.
At a meeting of systematists discussing the species concept, someone
noted that using the diagnostic phylogenetic concept (smallest
diagnosable groups) there would be three to ten times as many bird
species as are currently named. One of the authors of that concept said,
"So what? If there are that many diagnoseable groups, there are that
many species? We want our classifications to reflect biological
reality!" Looks like this is becoming true...
Which? Classifications starting to reflect biological reality? And what
aspects of biological reality? In fact many of the currently recognized
bird species consist of multiple biological species. And a great many
more than that probably would if the populations were in sympatry and we
could do such tests.
The identification of species as least diagnostic groups (whether by
data that indicates biological isolation, or some other criterion - as
far as I can tell, the diagnostic concept is a meta-level concept).
I'm dubious about the ability to recognize new species on the basis of
bar codes, by the way. But let's see what the paper says.
I bet that it chooses some arbitrary level of genetic dissimilarity as
the test that genes are not being exchanged by these groups (which is
fine if that is based on prior experience). Have to wait and see - I
can't find it either...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
