21 Responses to “Conservative Media Attacks New Species Discoveries”

1. Ranatemporaria responds: May 19th, 2007 at 8:38 am

   Hi Loren interesting article, its not a new issue however, not sure why its now getting the attention. This time last year I posted a link to an article on Taxonomic Inflation and species concepts from 2001, and even long before then there have been taxonomic splitters and lumpers in biology.

2. Loren Coleman responds: May 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am

   There is no dispute that splitters and lumpers exist in the history of taxonomy.

   The question of timing in 2007 is intriguing, as it seems any chance to bring up any issue that can be re-framed politically, even from 2001, is worthy of some media attempts to do so.

   Looking at the reality of new species discoveries, whether in the field or in the lab, however, is what is truly worth of examining.

3. things-in-the-woods responds: May 19th, 2007 at 9:55 am

   So why exactly do the economist and the WSJ think they are an authority on biological taxonomy?

   I think we should regard this in just the same light as these economists would an article in the Journal of Paleontology about the way that they should measure the global equities market.

   This is, as Loren says, clearly an article motivated by politics rather than any grasp of the scientific methods and principles involved.

   However, that is not to say that it is not an issue. The fact is that the concept of a species is not the nice neat thing that people seem to think it is. There are several ways of defining a species, each with different criteria, and even within each definition there is room for subjectivity. And this will probably always be the case because, quite simply a species is not a ‘natural kind’, it is an arbitrary (which is not to say random) way of dividing up the natural world, invented by humans.

4. dogu4 responds: May 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am

   Gadzooks, I hate that term “species inflation”.

5. Bob Michaels responds: May 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

   I Am in the splitter category, each sub species, or new species will encourage more land set asides much to the chagrin of the pavers and developers,at any cost to the environment and Bio-diversity. A true Conservative is a conservationist.

6. Jjm3233 responds: May 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

   To be honest I agree with your point about species discovery; but I have serious questions about which of these DNA markers actually qualify as new species and which simply show how the sub-species differ from each other. (I guess that makes me a “lumper”)

7. greatanarch responds: May 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

   If we start pasting political labels onto scientific positions, all possibility of rational discussion disappears.

8. bill green responds: May 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

   hey loren, very informative new article about a new species of monkey discovered. very interesting indeed. thanks bill green

9. drew hempel responds: May 19th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

   Hi Loren: Thanks for this commentary and these “alpha male” news sources are quite myopic — probably suffering from the “executive syndrome” as Professor Robert Sapolsky details.

10. drew hempel responds: May 19th, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Well I guess it should have been “regressive evolution” and “recessive DNA” — here’s Schwartz’ latest challeng on the “molecular clock” model: No Missing Link?

11. jodzilla responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Species or subspecies, lumped or split, if it’s endangered it should be protected. The very idea that there is something “suspicious” about an increase in the discovery of new species is stupid. I’m tired of the idea of so-called leftwing science and rightwing science. Are we to believe that left-wing scientists are actually plotting ways to thwart big business? As if scientists don’t have enough to work to do already. Puh-lease.

12. Daniel Loxton responds: May 20th, 2007 at 2:05 am

    Hey, Loren, that’s a useful blog entry. I think your commentary is quite correct.

13. DavidFredSneakers responds: May 20th, 2007 at 4:09 am

    “…disparagingly referred to as “charismatic megafauna” — species that the public cares about (apes, not rodents).”

    Funny, I seem to remember the Laotian Rock Rat causing quite a stir.

    I think that the conservation of the our fellow species on this planet is increasingly becoming a bipartisan concern. Our need for mantaining the earths biodiversity is undisputed, articles like this are truly in the “Dark Ages.”

    Thankfully, I think that this point of view is truly in the minority.

14. mystery_man responds: May 20th, 2007 at 6:01 am

    I don’t really see the new techniques of discerning differences in species as being a bad thing at all, and personally view it as a helpful way to more accurately catalogue the great biodiversity of life on Earth. By discerning the differences between animals that are superficially similar, we are really just categorizing these creatures in more detail. Taxonomy is a tricky thing and there can be debates about what constitutes a new species, but I think any technology that can help us better discern the genetic differences between animals is a good think towards furthering our understanding of the creatures we share this planet with. I think the whole process of genetic analysis of species is fascinating and I see nothing but progress here.

15. Loren Coleman responds: May 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am

    This is NOT a message board. This area is for comments about the topic of the blog - new species, subspecies, taxonomy, and those subjects mentioned in the blog.

    Remarks on global warming and your own politics will be deleted.

    Thank you for staying on topic.

16. Bob Michaels responds: May 20th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Let’s take a look at the status of whitetail deer as to its subspecies. 38 are recognized between Canada and the tip of South America. Thirty of which are North American, but hold it one group states that only 16 subspecies are NA. Which is it, the consolidators or the splitters. I say let the DNA decide what constitutes a species or a subspecies.

17. DWA responds: May 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am

    I’m tired of physicists saying Meldrum’s a quack, and suits saying taxonomy’s getting it wrong.

    What ever happened to what our moms told us?

    Mind your OWN business!

18. Ranatemporaria responds: May 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am

    Bob,
    Unfortunately you have a similar problem with DNA analysis in that ultimately it is subjective human decision as to exactly how much genetic divergence is required to constitute re-classification (a new species). Even con-specifics, siblings and offspring have altered DNA, hence DNA recognition in crimes. The amount of variance increases, mostly, with time since initial divergence, despite this in theory a species divided into separate populations over many thousands of years could not diverge “enough”, to be genetically different species.

    Jodzilla -
    The point about conservation is that if you have a species with a population of 10,000, and is deemed sustainable, if you then split this into 10 different subspecies you may be left with 10 separate “endangered” sub species! Weather this is the right or wrong thing to do is a matter of debate.

19. shumway10973 responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 am

    I find it very interesting that the 2 newspapers mentioned have names and history of dealing with money. I also found it interesting that it is mentioned what could happen to conservation if these practices continue. I will admit that I have noticed the dividing of species myself, but with the advancements we have in dna and such things, we can more easily see slight differences between species, ones that aren’t necessarily noticeable to the naked eye. But then I guess that does bring up an important question as to “How do scientists determine separate species, when they look almost identical?”

20. dogu4 responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am

    I think ranatemporaria makes a good point but I would add that the concept of species is a functional one and therefore inevitably subject to interpretation by both the one who chooses it as appropriate and by the listener. It’s not just about how different one set of genes is from the other, as it must function also. The idealized situation as portrayed in the modern standard model ignores an awful lot of stuff about which we’re just beginning to gain some understanding. i.e.: horizontal gene transfer, the role of virus, genetic mosaics and possible quantum electromagnetic effects.

    I think the cautionary aspect of the article in The Economist should be that human scaled constructions, both in the real and abstract, whether we’re talking about the size of a garden or the International Monetary Fund reflects how we understand the system to work, and sure enough, it DOES work by most definition, at least for a while…but not likely to work very well or in an organic and coordinated fashion as does nature whose laws are so flexible and yet simultaneously immutable and unavoidable.

    PS…nice MySpace tunes, ranatemporaneous.

21. MattBille responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Well, taxonomy is something of a mess, and frankly it always has been. There were, at one point, an alleged 86 species of brown bears in North America. Now there is one, with four subspecies.
    Defining a species, whether one relies on morphology, the biological species concept, DNA, or some mix of these, is subjective. It is nonetheless necessary. If we say all bears are the same, then we can lose grizzlies or polars or whatever and assume there’s no meaningful loss of diversity. Clearly, it’s not so.

    What does this mean? We must define species as well as we can, accepting that experts disagree and some calls are going to be wrong. Science has just got to muddle through.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|