From daemon Tue Dec 2 17:58:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA01716 Message-Id: <199712030158.RAA01716@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA (Nat. Inst. Water & Atmos. Research) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:47:48 +1100 Subject: PRO 'bounce' test results Bear with me ANNELIDA folks, Here are 17 names that 'bounced' or appeared to fail in a test yesterday. Please have a quick look through for colleagues known to you. Unless someone sends a correction I'll annotate the PRO list that each is a suspect e-mail address It may just require a minor alteration in some cases where your computer people have 'fiddled' with host names or aliases. My apologies in advance if in fact I've overlooked a note from any of you. Thanks very much to those who responded to the last reminder - nice to know you are out there! AABEL, Jens -- NORWAY = JensPetter.Aabel@rf.no CARON, Alain -- CANADA = Alain_Caron@hp9ri.uqar.uquebec.ca CLEVELAND, Carol -- U.S.A = bycmc@olemiss.edu CULTER, James -- USA = mmljculter@aol.com DEAN, Harlan -- USA = DEAN@HUSC.HARVARD.EDU DESROSIERS, Gaston -- CANADA = Gaston_Desrosiers@hp9ri.uqar.uquebec.ca GRANADOS-BARBA, Alejandro -- MEXICO = granados@servidor.unam.mx HENSLEY, Robin -- UK = gbjh6197@qub.ac.uk HERNANDEZ-ALCANTARA, Pablo -- MEXICO = pabloh@servidor.unam.mx HOOVER, Phillip -- CANADA = phoover@sol.uvic.ca KAAG, Nicolaas -- THE NETHERLANDS = K.Kaag@kribc.tno.nl KRISTENSEN, Torben -- DENMARK = T1kristens@zmuc.ku.dk SCHULZE, Stefan -- U.S.A = Schulze_S@TPA1.DEP.STATE.FL.US SICINSKI, Jacek -- POLAND = sicinski@krysia.uni.lodz.pl. WILLIAMS, Jason -- U.S.A. = JWIL4024@URIACC.URI.EDU These two may or may not have been successful CARRASCO, Franklin -- CHILE = fcarrasc@buho.dpi.udec.cl GALLARDO, Victor -- CHILE = vagallar@buho.dpi.udec.cl -- Geoff Read -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Wed Dec 3 03:25:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id DAA23213 Message-Id: <199712031125.DAA23213@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:22:58 +0000 Subject: Ice worm cocktail ballad "There's been a run on cocktails, Boss; there ain't an ice-worm left. Yet wait ... By gosh! It seems to me that some of extra size Were picked and put away to show the scientific guys." Following Sam James pointer to Robert Service I found the immortal ballad in question online: http://www.top.monad.net/~artude/verse/ice_worm.html "... ice-worms are peculiar to the mountain of Blue Snow. Within the Polar rim it rears, a solitary peak, And in the smoke of early Spring (a spectacle unique) Like flame it leaps upon the sight and thrills you through and through, For though its cone is piercing white, its base is blazing blue. Yet all is clear as you draw near - for coyley peering out Are hosts and hosts of tiny worms, each indigo of snout. And as no nourishment they find, to keep themselves alive They masticate each other's tails, till just the Tough survive. Yet on this stern and Spartan fare so-rapidly they grow, That some attain six inches by the melting of the snow." There is much much more, but that is probably the highlight for us scientific guys and gals. Fans of splendid doggerel will find other classics of Service's oeuvre at: http://www.top.monad.net/~artude/service.html -- Geoff Read -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Wed Dec 3 13:06:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id NAA15273 Message-Id: <199712032106.NAA15273@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Eibye-Jacobsen, Danny {ZMUC}" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Subject: Rouse, Fauchald, Eibye-Jacobsen, Nielsen Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:51:00 +0100 To subscribers on the ANNELIDA list, The latest issue of Zoologica Scripta contains a 'Point of View' by Greg Rouse (1997. Rearticulating with extra assumptions: a response to Eibye-Jacobsen and Nielsen. -- Zoologica Scripta 26: 61-66). This paper is in answer to Eibye-Jacobsen & Nielsen (1997. The rearticulation of annelids. -- Zoologica Scripta 25: 275-282), which in turn was a comment on Rouse & Fauchald (1995. The articulation of annelids. -- Zoologica Scripta 24: 269-301). Claus Nielsen and I do not feel that it would be helpful to publish a response to the response to our comment. However, there are some important remarks that we would like to make available to the readers of ANNELIDA. If you have not read all three papers, the following discussion might be difficult to follow. Greg has written an eloquent paper that appears to answer all the matters raised by Eibye- Jacobsen & Nielsen. The problem is that it never really gets to the heart of the matter. A short introduction is necessary to explain this conclusion. The most important issues discussed by Eibye-Jacobsen & Nielsen were: 1) Rouse & Fauchald (hereafter R & F) included Pogonophora and Vestimentifera in their cladistic analysis, alongside Polychaeta and Clitellata. Eibye-Jacobsen & Nielsen (hereafter E-J & N) suggested that this very probably made Polychaeta paraphyletic and that a second analysis, including Pogonophora and Vestimentifera in Polychaeta, was required. 2) R & F included Echiura in their analysis. E-J & N stated that this might also render Polychaeta paraphyletic, and that a supplementary analysis would be useful (see also McHugh, D. 1997. Molecular evidence that echiurans and pogonophorans are derived annelids. -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94: 8006-8009). 3) R & F ran only one analysis, with all characters given equal weight; the 18 resultant trees were summarized as a strict consensus tree. E-J argued that the 18 trees should have been analyzed further using successive character weighting. 4) R & F gave equal credence to all 18 of the trees that resulted from their analysis. E-J & N suggested that trees containing soft polytomies could be removed, providing that the remaining set of trees contains compatible, more highly resolved solutions that have no zero- length branches. In addition to these points E-J & N suggested some alternative interpretations of the characters used by R & F. To summarize, E-J & N argued that uncertainties of the type mentioned above in 1) and 2) could not be represented in just one data matrix and that the issues in 3) and 4) suggest that the information present in this matrix is not presented adequately in a consensus tree based only on the trees resulting from the initial analysis. The entire point of E-J & N was to argue that R & F had considered NO alternatives. The title of Greg's paper highlights our disagreement. He called it "Rearticulating with extra assumptions". Please note that R & F certainly used assumptions in constructing their data matrix: for example, keeping Pogonophora and Vestimentifera out of Polychaeta IS an assumption, and one that is probably wrong. "Extra assumptions" implies that R & F somehow used a "clean" matrix, with no assumptions. What E-J & N were arguing for were not EXTRA assumptions, just OTHER ones. We felt strongly that given the small size of R & F's matrix and the importance of the entire subject, it was reasonable to expect that alternative interpretations would be explored through supplementary analyses, rather than just being mentioned in the text. Finally, we would like to comment on some specific points in Greg's paper. Greg uses Euhirudinea to demonstrate that the addition of a paraphyletic taxon (in this case Clitellata) can lead to the opposite result of that shown by E-J & N, i.e., incorrectly INCREASED resolution. The point is well taken, but this is certainly not a desirable result either! Including paraphyletic taxa in an analysis is in the best of cases neutral and otherwise a bad thing. We fail to understand why one would ever knowingly include such a group. Alternatively, when the balance of evidence is tipping heavily towards the conclusion that pogonophorans, including vestimentiferans, are polychaetes, then running only one analysis, one that ignores this evidence, is not enough. I (E-J) was personally surprised to see the pogonophorans treated this way because in October of 1994 I attended a lecture given by Kristian Fauchald in which he stated that this group was probably closely related to the Terebellida. Close enough to the Sabellida for me and certainly a very different opinion of the group than that expressed in R & F. The use of "Dinophilidae" by E-J & N in order to demonstrate the problems that may arise from the use of paraphyletic taxa in a cladistic analysis was criticized by Greg as being a "carefully selected case". Dinophilus is, as Greg states, an aberrant polychaete (dorvilleid) group. Our point was that pogonophorans (including vestimentiferans) are probably also aberrant polychaetes. As Greg writes, "analyses that seek resolution at one hierarchical level may be inappropriate at another level". That is why E-J & N argued that R & F should have carried out a second analysis, including these groups among the polychaetes. Surely neither van der Land, Norrevang, Southward, Ivanov, Gardiner nor the recently deceased Jones would have regarded this as "contemptuous". Greg implies that E-J & N would a priori include Gnathostomulida and Lobatocerebridae among the Polychaeta. We spoke directly to the case of Lobatocerebridae and agreed with R & F in their treatment of that group. E-J & N did not mention gnathostomulids at all, for the simple reason that they do not agree with each other on the position of that group. The point E-J & N made about the molluscan cuticle was that although there are areas of the epithelium that are covered by a chitinous cuticle, usually more or less calcified (this character is an autapomorphy for the Mollusca), there are also "naked" areas where the cuticle has an ultrastructure resembling that of both annelids, sipunculans and most non-chordate deuterostomes. We know of no investigation of these parts of the molluscan cuticle which has searched specifically for collagen. On the other hand, there are also very few studies of other organisms where the collagenous nature of the fibres between the microvilli has been positively demonstrated. Greg defends the use of a consensus tree to summarize the information in R & F's original 18 trees. Four out of five cladists will agree that a consensus tree is not worth much and that the information content is higher in any one of the trees used to construct the consensus tree. Greg's rejection of E-J & N's arguments for using successive character weighting is more semantic than substantial. He is, however, correct in pointing out that the procedure does in rare cases lead to an increase in the total number of most parsimonious trees (but not in the case at hand). The method has not been perfected yet, but rests on the sound logic that all characters are not created equal (i.e., we are not infallible in determining homologies). Claus and I regard successive character weighting as a necessary part of any complete cladistic analysis. Greg argues that "the detailed analysis of all trees in R & F was a better way of dealing with the search results". We will have to agree to disagree on that. Regarding soft and hard polytomies, Greg writes that "the choice of resolving polytomies may be an appropriate measure provided that there is actually information available that the polytomies are indeed 'soft' or 'hard'." He goes on to note that there is no such information in the case of the taxa treated by R & F. This is a strange statement. Without time travel (or altering the data matrix) we will never have information to decide whether any polytomy is soft or hard. The question is more fundamental: does the hypothesis that a polytomy at the phylum level can be hard (i.e., the result of a multiple speciation event) have ANY credence? We don't believe it does. Again, we must agree to disagree. Greg also suggests that it was unfair of E-J & N to criticize R & F on the basis of a paper that had not yet been published (namely, Coddington & Scharff. 1996. Problems with 'soft' polytomies. -- Cladistics 12: 139-145). This would be true if it were the entire story, but the option to filter out soft polytomies has existed in the PAUP program since 1993 and is explained in the manual (Maddison & Maddison. 1992. MacClade ver. 3.01. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, U.K.). Coddington & Scharff just highlighted the problem. In the end, each reader will have to form their own opinions in the matter. We argued that the subject was so important that it required a more complete analysis than that provided by R & F. Danny Eibye-Jacobsen Zoological Museum Universitetsparken 15 DK-2100 Copenhagen O Denmark tel: (+45) 35 32 11 15 fax: (+45) 35 32 10 10 e-mail: dejacobsen@zmuc.ku.dk -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Wed Dec 3 16:39:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id QAA22373 Message-Id: <199712040039.QAA22373@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:47:28 -0500 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: judy A Fournier <110275.1004@compuserve.com> Subject: Rouse, Fauchald, Eibye-Jacobsen, Nielsen Dear Annelidans: Trying to develop a cladistic analysis of the annelida is all very well but I, at least, still await proof that the Polychaeta are monophyletic or at least a cohesive natural grouping. We tend to take it for granted, but I am not at all sure that the Nereididae are any more closely related to the Sabellidae than they might be to the Clitellata! Judy Fournier <110275.1004@compuserve.com> -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Wed Dec 3 19:22:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id TAA13894 Message-Id: <199712040322.TAA13894@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:34:19 -0800 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Kirk Fitzhugh Subject: Rouse, Fauchald, Eibye-Jacobsen, Nielsen Colleagues: I'd like to take a moment to respond to Danny Eibye-Jacobsen's posting here, where he presents a rebuttal to Greg Rouse's rebuttal to Eibye-Jacobsen & Nielsen's critique of Rouse & Fauchald. I'll use the name abbreviations employed by these individuals to keep things as short as possible. When E-J&N's paper originally appeared, I actively avoided getting into this debate for two simple reasons: 1) the paraphyly issue as it pertains to R&F's cladistic analysis using "Annelida", "Pogonophora", and "Vestimentifera" was blown out of proportion by E-J&N, and rested on specious reasoning; 2) E-J&N's particular advocacy of successive approximations weighting, and the criticism of R&F for not using such a method are unfounded. Quite frankly, I found E-J&N's diatribe to go well beyond what was necessary, and I think it unfortunate that Rouse had to expend so much energy writing a lengthy rebuttal. I have no problem with salient discussions of character interpretations, but to bounce around the question of annelid monophyly relative to what taxa are included at the level of phylum or class simply neglects the real issue: that our understanding of cladistic relationships among annelid groups at just about any hierarchical level is abysmal. E-J&N state that R&F's analysis using pogonophorans and vestimentiferans as taxa equivalent to the Annelida runs the risk of making the Annelida paraphyletic, thus making it a "requirement" that at least an additional analysis is needed wherein the former groups are excluded. Do I think the Annelida could be paraphyletic because there have been vestimentiferan and pogonophoran phyla? Sure. Is that reason enough to claim that R&F needed to take this into consideration? DEFINITELY NOT. The whole point of R&F's paper was to set the stage for looking at just these issues of pogonophoran/vestimentiferan inclusion in the Annelida. Personally, I thought this was eminently clear in their paper - but maybe my thought processes are not so well tuned to the obvious. That R&F included the Pogonophora and Vestimentifera is of no detriment to what they attempted to accomplish. E-J&N raise the same concerns with regard to R&F's use of the Echiura. The simple fact is that E-J&N's supposed solution to R&F's perceived deficiencies is no solution at all, and such an alternate analysis provides no greater illumination. If we want to address matters of paraphyly, then take the time to look at relationships within the groups in question! That is the only way to settle this matter, and again, my reading of R&F's position was that that was just their intention in their forthcoming papers. What we have seen are needless arguments over semantics, not solutions to real (or imagined) problems. For some peculiar reason there is then debate on the use of consensus trees. E-J states that "Four out of five cladists will agree that a consensus tree is not worth much and that the information content is higher in any one of the trees used to construct the consensus tree." This is a straw man. Four out of five cladists will also tell you that they know the difference between consensus trees and original trees. Using one or the other resides in what it is one intends to get across to their audience. Strict consensus trees are useful in showing relative branch movements, i.e., topological phenomena. For that they do have some "worth". "Information content" is meaningless in this context. That E-J would use information content of a single tree as evidence against a consensus tree is nonsensical. The "information content" of a tree relates to those character data that are used to construct the tree. Any cladist (or at least 4 out of 5) will tell you that character distributions on consensus trees are not to be considered as the consensus tree is a compilation of other topologies, not a summary of data per se. E-J&N argue that R&F should have used successive approximations weighting (SAW), under the premise that "weak" characters could be down weighted in lieu of eliminating ambiguity and providing "more conclusive results." E-J&N have stepped on a philosophical land mine. First, the issue of character weighting in any incarnation lacks any sort of empirical justification, and without such justification, there's no basis for using it as a critique of R&F's results. Now, to say that some characters are "weak", or, as E-J says, that cladistics "rests on the sound [sic!] logic that all characters are not created equal (i.e., we are not infallible in determining homologies)" is irrelevant to the matter of weighting. Further, the "equality" of characters is a nonissue. We make observations of shared similarity among taxa; as systematists we are driven to account for such order in the world. Where does equality of characters fit into all this? Nowhere, and not least of all in cladistics. If we're going to start ranking observations then it's got to be at the level of bare observations, not at the point of making cladograms. I know of no one that wants to tackle that monster. Indeed, the issue of homology is wholly separate from that of SAW. SAW was originally intended to give greater weight of evidence to those characters with higher cladistic reliability, i.e., with lowest levels of homoplasy. This is an elegant argument but equally fallacious. How does one denote "reliability"? If it is to be by way of getting results that accord with some sort of independent measure of truth, then we have no means of measuring such a feature. If we have independent measures of truth then there's no need to do cladistics! This is exactly the logical nightmare that ensnares proponents of maximum likelihood. Arguments in favor of weighting have consistently failed because they rely on some notion of "reliability". But then, proponents of weighting have failed to see cladistics for what it really is: a process of developing explanatory hypotheses to account for our observations of shared similarity among taxa. SAW has the deficiency of denying the relevance of looking at homoplasy. Seeing features as homologous is profoundly easy - accounting for why some of our notions of homology do not hold up on cladograms, i.e., appear as homoplasy, should be given the highest priority. Trying to down weight homoplasy out of existence is simply a ludicrous endeavor. It is nothing more than science at it's lowest. Cladists would be far better served if the vacuous attempts at weighting were removed from consideration. E-J says "Claus and I regard [SAW} as a necessary part of any complete [sic] cladistic analysis." Why??? On what basis does one say that a set of SAW trees have relevance over all minimum-length trees? I can guarantee you that there is no basis for selecting any of the former over the latter. Let me repeat myself - there are no empirically founded methods of character weighting. The debate over "soft" and "hard" polytomies is about as irrelevant as how much weight to give characters as an unfounded excuse to reduce the number of trees. Rouse was quite correct to raise concerns as to how one could possibly "know" when polytomies are soft or hard, which is not the same as simply recognizing that polytomies exist as part of an explanatory hypothesis. E-J simply evades the issue with equivocation: "does the hypothesis that a polytomy at the phylum level can be hard...have ANY credence? We don't believe it does." But, using this logic reduces all polytomies to being soft. But, so what? But, is this a basis for removing trees? But, of course not. All we've done is forsaken one level of ignorance for another for no reason whatsoever. This is just another example of poor science being used to make a method look flashy. When issues in science focus more on methods than on the basis for use of the methods, we should all be very worried. And, it's time to be worried. So, have E-J&N shown fault with R&F? Not really. What they've shown is that yes indeed the Annelida might be paraphyletic; but, we as well as R&F have known that all along. Did E-J&N provide any substantive alternative to the quandary of Annelida paraphyly? No. Was there then a need to have these long-winded exchanges? No. Our time would have been better served talking about the ignorance we all share as to much more fundamental issues. Cladistics is seeing an unfortunate trend in practitioners wanting more bells and whistles in computer programs, peculiar coding methods of characters, and reading things out of cladograms that simply don't have a basis in fact. I guess this makes us all feel that we're doing big-time science. Feelings, however, are irrelevant. It's ironic that the proponents of parsimony were right all along - cladograms represent our basic observations in terms of common ancestry with ad hoc hypotheses of homoplasy where needed. The simplicity and reality of these hypotheses has been lost on many who try to read too much into cladograms, or have some idea of how data such as nucleotide sequences evolve such that inane, contrived weighting schemes and tossing out of data are deemed necessary. Have a nice day... Kirk Fitzhugh -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Thu Dec 4 13:14:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id NAA24596 Message-Id: <199712042114.NAA24596@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA (Nat. Inst. Water & Atmos. Research) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:38:38 +1100 Subject: (Fwd) neotropical annelids A good question for ANNELIDA. Please redirect replies to the original sender (or the list). ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:45:06 +0000 From: Alex Monro Subject: neotropical annelids To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM Dear All, I have been working on a project looking at soil microvariation in Belize, this involved digging a large number of soil pits in which a number earthworms were present. Being a botanist and compulsive collector I pickled these in 70% alcohol in anticipation of finding a specialist who would be interested in the material later. I have asked around at the Natural History Museum in London where I work, but no one seems to know of anybody working on neotropical earthworms. Does anybody know of anybody who might be interested in these collections? thanks, Alex Alex Monro Department of Botany The Natural History Museum London, SW7 5BD Tel. 0171 938 9068 http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ Fax. 0171 938 9260 http://cissus.mobot.org/mobot/fm/ -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Thu Dec 4 15:00:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id PAA10229 Message-Id: <199712042300.PAA10229@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:34:49 +1100 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Greg Rouse Subject: Re: Rouse, Fauchald, Eibye-Jacobsen, Nielsen Greetings, Following Kirk's articulate response to the latest diatribe by Danny Eibye-Jacobsen I see no point in responding directly myself. I do suggest that the papers be read by those interested, rather than the inadequate summary provided by Danny. Reprint requests to the address below. I will also say that the next issue of Zoologica Scripta contains two papers by myself and Kristian Fauchald that were foreshadowed in the original 'articulation of annelids'. These papers directly address the issue of the monophyly of the Polychaeta and the placement and status of the 'Pogonophora'. I will make an announcement about the web site where the data matrices etc. can be downloaded in the near future. These papers represent a more complete analysis that Danny suggests is necessary. Somehow he managed to miss reference to them in his close reading of Rouse and Fauchald (1995) and Rouse (1997). Greg Rouse School of Biological Sciences A08 University of Sydney N.S.W. 2006 Australia Tel. (02) 9351 5571 Fax (02) 9351 4119 International: 61 2 replaces 02 -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Fri Dec 5 11:54:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id LAA08833 Message-Id: <199712051954.LAA08833@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:39:44 -0500 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: judy A Fournier <110275.1004@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: (Fwd) neotropical annelids There are three people who have done extensive work on neotropical earthworms. Unfortunately, I do not have their e-mail addresses except for Dr. John W. Reynolds (who has graduated from chairing a college department to steering big trucks!). Gilberto Righi -- Brazil Carlos Fragoso -- Mexico (Veracruz) Dr. John Reynolds, editor Megadrilogia, john.reynolds1@sympatico.ca Contact Dr. Reynolds first and he will provide you with contact with Dr. Righi & Dr. Fragoso. Unfortunately, the specimens may not be suitable for study for very long. 70% ethanol does not properly fix anneliden tissues and the specimens deteriorate quite rapidly. 95% ethanol or fixation in 10% formalin for 24 hours before transfer to 70% ethanol is recommended. Judy Fournier <110275.1004@compuserve.com> -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 9 14:44:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id OAA07682 Message-Id: <199712092244.OAA07682@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:34:54 -0400 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: dmchugh@oeb.harvard.edu (Damhnait McHugh) Subject: Metazoan Phylogeny Symposia, Boston, January '98 Two symposia on the topics of metazoan phylogeny and the evolution of development will be hosted by the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (formerly American Society of Zoologists) at the Boston Marriott Copley Place, January 5th - 7th, 1998. Information about the meeting is available at http://www.sicb.org/public/meetings/index.html and the schedule for the symposia appears below. All the best, Damhnait McHugh Symposium I EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS OF METAZOAN PHYLA: ADVANCES, PROBLEMS, AND APPROACHES ***--- DAY ONE ---*** 8:00 am McHUGH, D. Harvard University. - Introductory remarks 8:10 am RAFF, R.A. Indiana University, Bloomington. - Evolution of developmental processes and body plans 9:00 am NAGY, L.M. University of Arizoan, Tucson - Changing patterns of gene regulation in the evolution of arthropod morphology 9:30 am HOLLAND, P.W.H. University of Reading, U.K. - Major transitions in animal evolution: a developmental genetic perspective 10:00 am ---coffee break--- 10:15 am BALAVOINE, G. - Segmentation and the genesis of the HOX complex 10:45 am WRAY, C.Philips Academy, Andover - Integrating molluscan developmental genetics into phylum level systematic investigations 11:15 am BOORE, J.L. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - Gene rearrangements define the earliest branches of metazoan evolution 11:45 am---lunch break--- 1:00 pm LAKE, J.A. U.C. Los Angeles - Evolution of multicellular animals 1:30 pm WINNEPENNINCKX, B. Universiteit Antwerpen, Belgium - 18S rRNA and metazoan phylogeny 2:00 pm GAREY, J.R. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh - The pivotal role of "minor" phyla in understanding animal evolution 2:30 pm---coffee break--- 2:45 pm McHUGH, D. Harvard University, Cambridge. - Protostome phylogeny: the evolution of segmentation and the diversity of body plans 3:15 pm REGIER, J.C. and SHULTZ, J. University of Maryland, College Park - Resolving arthropod phylogeny using multiple nuclear genes 3:45 am HALANYCH, K. Rutgers University, New Brunswick. - Assessing phylogenetic signal in molecular studies of metazoan phylogeny. *********************************************************** 7:30 pm CONWAY MORRIS, S. University of Cambridge, U.K. - The Cambrian explosion: reconciling paleontological and molecular data *********************************************************** ***--- DAY TWO ---*** 8:00 am HALANYCH, K. Rutgers University, New Brunswick - Introductory remarks 8:10 am NIELSEN, C. University of Copenhagen, Denmark - Morphology: from ultrastructure to Bauplan, from zygote to adult 9:00 am FAUCHALD, K. and ROUSE, G. Smithsonian Institution, D.C. and University of Sydney, Australia - Cladistics and the Polychaeta 9:30 am MOOI, R. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. - Evolution within a bizarre phylum: advances in understanding skeletal homologies of the earliest echinoderms 10:00 am ---coffee break--- 10:15 am WAGGONER, B. University of California, Berkeley. - Interpreting the earliest metazoan fossils: what can we learn? 10:45 pm EERNISSE, D. California State University, Fullerton - Bilaterian animal relationships based on combined analysis of morphology and DNA sequences 11:15 am WRAY, G. and LEVINTON, J. State University of New York, Stonybrook. - Implications of a deep Precambrian divergence of the animal phyla ************* ************* Symposium II Development and Evolutionary Perspectives On Major Transformations in Body Organization Wednesday, January 7, 1998 8:45 AM - 12:00 PM Location: Salons A/B 8:45 AM Introduction to the symposium. 9:00 AM 613 ERWIN, D.H., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. -The origin of body plans. 9:30 AM 614 WRAY, G.A.* and C.J. LOWE. State Univ. New York, Stony Brook. - The origin and diversification of echinoderms: new roles for old genes. 10:00 AM COFFEE BREAK 10:30 AM 615 HOLLAND, L.Z., N.D. HOLLAND*, N.A. WILLIAMS and M.KENE, Univ. of California San Diego, La Jolla, Reading Univ., U.K. and Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles. - How did the vertebrates get their segments? The view from amphioxus. 11:00 AM 616 SHIMELD, S.M., Univ. of Reading, UK. - Conservation and innovation: the evolution of pattern formation in the craniate neural tube. 11:30 AM 617 CARROLL, S. Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison. - Hox genes and the evolution of animal body patterns. Wednesday, January 7, 1998 1:30 PM - 5:00 PM Location: Salons A/B 1:30 PM 618 PANGANIBAN, G. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. - The origin and evolution of animallimbs. 2:00 PM 619 WILLIAMS, T.A. Univ. of Texas, Austin. - What can morphogenesis tell us about evolutionary transformations in arthropod limbs? 2:30 PM 620 TAUTZ, D.*, M. KLINGLER, R.SCHRODER, and C. WOLFF. Univ.of Munich, Germany. - Conservation and divergence of the segmentation gene hierarchy in insects. 3:00 PM COFFEE BREAK 3:30 PM 621 COATES, M.I.* and M.J. COHN. Univ. College London, UK. - Outgrowths and axial patterning in vertebrate evolution. 4:00 PM 622 TABIN, C.J.* and E. LAUFER.Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. - Parallels between the genetic networks patterning the vertebrate and insect appendages. 4:30 PM 623 WAGNER, G.P.*, P. KAHN, G.NAYLOR, M. BLANCO, and B.Y. MISOF. Yale Univ., New Haven, CT. - Evolution of Hoxa-11 expression in amphibians: Is the salamander autopod an innovation? *************** Damhnait McHugh Assistant Professor of Biology Assistant Curator in Invertebrate Zoology Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard University 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Tel: (617) 495-2459 FAX: (617) 495-5667 e-mail: dmchugh@oeb.harvard.edu -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 9 16:48:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id QAA20122 Message-Id: <199712100048.QAA20122@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:29:56 +1300 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Geoff Read Organization: NIWA Subject: Fwd: Symposium on Large Phylogenies Forwarded from a newsgroup. The preamble at least might interest some of you. ============================================= From: Junhyong Kim Newsgroups: sci.bio.systematics Subject: Symposium on Large Phylogenies Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 15:44:15 -0400 SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS Estimating Large Scale Phylogenies: Biological, Statistical, and Algorithmic Problems SPONSORS: DIMACS and University of Pennsilvania Program in Computational Biology LOCATION: Princeton University DATE: June 26-28, 1998 FORMAT: Paper presentations and posters. All papers for oral presentation must be submitted in full and they will be peer reviewed. PAPER SUBMISSION DEADLINE: April 15, 1998. Please submit papers by mail or email (ps file/MS Word file only) to: Junhyong Kim Dept. of Biology Yale University 165 Prospect st. New Haven, CT 06511 (203)-432-9917 (203)-432-3854 (fax) junhyong_kim@quickmail.yale.edu Co-organizers: Junhyong Kim, Tandy Warnow, and Ken Rice INTRODUCTION Biological organization is fundamentally based on an evolutionary history of bifurcating descent-with-modification. Phylogenetic estimation is the inference of this genealogical history from present day data. Phylogenetic trees, the graph representation of the genealogical history, play a central role in evolutionary biology and phylogenetic estimation techniques are being applied to a wide variety of computational biology problems. The size of a phylogenetic estimation problem is measured by the number of taxa and the number of characters. Until recently, computational and data limitations kept most phylogenetic estimation problems to small numbers of taxa. But, the availability of computational resources and the influx of large molecular data sets are enabling researchers to tackle increasingly larger problems, and the analysis of large-scale data sets is rapidly becoming a central problem in phylogenetic biology. Recent experimental evidence has established the existence of large trees that can be estimated accurately as well as those that are difficult to accurately estimate with reasonable numbers of characters. Some of these examples have suggested that taxon sampling (increasing the size of the estimation problem through the addition of taxa rather than characters) might lead to more easily estimated trees. Conversely, it has been argued that big trees are hard to infer for a variety of reasons: NP-hardness of the optimization problems, properties of the search space, inadequacy of the heuristics, and even possible inadequacy of the optimization criteria. Unfortunately, very little actual evidence is available to support any conjectures about how the performance of estimators scale with respect to the size of the phylogenetic problem. In addition, the question of scaling is itself confused by poorly delineated notions. For example, the size of the tree also involves the maximum amount of divergence (not only the number of taxa and characters) and measures of estimator performance have also not been standardly agreed upon. The goal of this symposium is to precisely identify the key problems with respect to how the performance of phylogenetic estimators scale as with the size of the problem, and gather experimental and theoretical results addressing this problem. FORMAT The symposium will consist of four topic sessions with paper presentations followed by a panel discussion of invited experts. The four topics and some of the questions to be addressed in each session are: Biological problems 1. What are the limits to sampling characters and taxa? 2. What are examples of very difficult problems? 3. What are the reasonable models of character evolution and tree shape? 4. What are the most important problems in systematics? 5. What can we say about evolutionary history from data other than rows and columns of homologous characters? Empirical results 1. What do simulation studies tell us about performance of different methods and how they scale with the size of the problem? 2. What properties of the tree models affect accuracy and how do those properties scale? 3. Are there any methodological biases? 4. What can we say about performance under more realistic models of sequence evolution from the existing studies? 5. Is there a need to standardize experimental studies, perhaps through the establishment of a testbed of different model trees, methods, etc? Algorithmic problems 1. What is the relationship between standard optimization problems (distance-based criteria, parsimony, etc) and estimating the topology of evolutionary trees? Which of the standard optimization criteria are best suited to obtaining highly accurate topology estimations, given bounds on the available sequence length? 2. How much of the difficulty is due to inadequate solution to the right NP-hard optimization problems? 3. Are there new optimization problems or approaches (not necessarily linked to optimization criteria) that are promising? 4. How good are the existing heuristics for solving the relevent optimization problems, and what new approaches might give better results on important optimization problems? 5. How should we evaluate performance of algorithms? 6. Are there 'algorithms engineering' issues which will make these methods less powerful, and how do we handle them? 7. Is it possible to design methods which can efficiently characterize all optimal and near-optimal trees, rather than just a single optima? Statistical problems 1. What bounds can we obtain on the convergence rate of different methods? 2. How do various statistical properties of different methods scale with the size of the problem? 3. What is the relationship between estimating the whole tree versus some subset of the tree? 4. What is the distribution of specific tree characteristics such as smallest edge length, smallest diameter for quartet covering, steminess, etc. with respect to tree model sampling distribution? 5. Can we obtain accuracy bounded estimates (sacrificing resolution)? -- Answers please on the back of a small envelope to: -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Fri Dec 12 14:53:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id OAA04492 Message-Id: <199712122253.OAA04492@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:40:20 -0600 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Gary Gaston Subject: Lumbrineris impatiens I was contacted by a colleague in Italy (see below) for information about Lumbrineris impatiens. I sent a reprint of my gut-contents observations, but he needs more information about ecology than I can provide. Can anybody help? Please send notes directly to him (Dr. Fulvio Zecchini c/o Gabber@tirreno.it). Happy holidays, Gary >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:23:53 +0100 >From: Gabriele Bernardini >To: bygaston >Subject: Info about a worm species. >Dear Dr. Gary Gaston, > >I am Dr. Fulvio Zecchini, a marine biologist - microbiologist from >Italy. I have been working on cephalopods with Dr. Michael Vecchione, >Ph.D. and Dr. Clyde F.E. Roper at the Smithsonian National Museum of >Natural History for two years. > >On my demand, Michael Vecchione gave me your E-mail address (he told me >you are an old friend of his). I would greatly appreciate if you would >send me some articles (or, at least, some bibliographic references) >regarding the ecology and biology of the polychaet species Lumbrinereis >impatiens (Polychaeta; Errantia; Eunicida). > >I need this information to start a research about the possibility of >breeding this species in captivity and study its bacterial diseases. > >My personal address is: > >Dr. Fulvio Zecchini >Via C. Pisacane, 2 >54100 Massa (MS) >ITALY > >The present E-mail address (gabber@tirreno.it) will change in a month, >I'll send you my new one as soon as I will get it. > >My best regards (for the holydays too), > >Fulvio -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- be very short-lived. Seasons Greetings, Danny Eibye-Jacobsen dejacobsen@zmuc.ku.dk -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Fri Dec 12 14:53:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id OAA04501 Message-Id: <199712122253.OAA04501@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:00:05 -0800 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: BIOSCI Administrator Subject: BIOSCI/bionet miniFAQ & Fundraiser (LAST REVISION: 30-JUL-95) This BIOSCI "miniFAQ" is designed to answer the questions that come up the *most frequently*. The main BIOSCI FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is accessible on the World Wide Web at URL http://www.bio.net/. If you can not find an answer to your question in this or other documentation, the BIOSCI technical support staff answers e-mail queries sent to biosci-help@net.bio.net We can only answer questions about the use of the newsgroups and mailing lists. We unfortunately do not have the staff to do Internet information searches or answer scientific questions. Please post those to the appropriate BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. Contents: -------- 0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!! 1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. 2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. 3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. 0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!! ------------------------------ BIOSCI's government funding has been expended, and we are now operating solely from advertising revenue that we have raised from our Web site at http://www.bio.net/. We need just a few minutes of your time to help us serve you. You can do two important things which will take very little time for you individually and will immensely help us continue to help you. First, please use our WWW system at http://www.bio.net/ to access the archives. You can post or reply to messages via your Web browser as described in item #1 below. Your usage helps attract sponsors. If you contact any of our sponsors, please be sure to thank them for supporting BIOSCI. It is critical for them to get this feedback if they are to continue their sponsorship for the long term. Second, if you work for a company or organization that provides products or services of interest to the biology community, please pass this message on to your marketing or marketing communications department or other appropriate group. Please ask them to help support BIOSCI by sponsoring our Web site and explain the uses and benefits of the system to the biology community. If they are interested, they can then contact us for further information at our tech support address, biosci-help@net.bio.net. 1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. -------------------------------------------------------- As of 10 December 1995, all BIOSCI/bionet full newsgroups are accessible through the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL http://www.bio.net. One can read and reply publicly or privately to both recent postings and archived messages through one's Web browser if it is configured properly to send e-mail. Each newsgroup is equipped with its own WAIS index. The main BIOSCI home page also has access to the BIO-JOURNALS Table of Contents database WAIS index and the BIOSCI user address database described in another item further below. 2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- BIOSCI is a set of parallel USENET newsgroups (the "bionet" groups), mailing lists, and a hypermail archive at URL http://www.bio.net/. The same postings are distributed on all media (except for a small number of mailing-list-only groups at net.bio.net). Unfortunately it is becoming a despicable practice on the Internet (by a few people out to make a fast buck) to do automated mass postings to thousands of newsgroups and mailing lists. These attempts to grab free advertising are refered to as "spams" in the usual, somewhat boneheaded, net terminology. USENET is more susceptible to this practice, and many spams originate on the USENET groups and then are passed on to the mailing lists. However, spammers also get lists of mailing addresses and hit these too, so neither medium is immune. What should you do personally if you get junk mail? --------------------------------------------------- Just delete it and move on without reading it further. Filing a protest is becoming increasingly useless because spammers are often disguising the addresses where the messages are sent from. Unless you really understand Internet mail systems, your attempt at protest by sending replies to the message will often end up being sent to the address of an innocent person that the spammer is victimizing. What can BIOSCI/bionet do to protect its newsgroups? ---------------------------------------------------- The only solution currently available is to moderate the newsgroup. If this newsgroup is already moderated, then you are in good shape. Moderation protects the USENET distribution from about 95% of the spams that are being sent to date and protects the mailing lists completely. Moderation means, however, that someone has to take the time to review each message before it goes out. We have set up software here that simply allows the moderator to forward to an address at net.bio.net messages that (s)he wishes to have distributed. This takes no more time than that needed to read the message and pass it on, say about 1 min. per message. Most newsgroups currently have a discussion leader who is responsible for their newsgroup. The discussions leaders and their e-mail addresses are listed in the BIOSCI Information Sheet which is available on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. If a newsgroup is being hit with too many junk postings, please contact the discussion leader for that group and see if there is interest in moderating the group. Please do not assume that by simply posting a complaint to the newsgroup itself, anyone on the BIOSCI staff will act on your complaint. With close to 100 newsgroups to run, the BIOSCI staff has to rely on the discussion leaders of each newsgroup to report problems directly to us at biosci-help@net.bio.net. We will moderate any of our newsgroups if the discussion leader tells us that the readership of the group wishes to do so and if a moderator is willing to do the work. For most BIOSCI/bionet groups, this entails only a few minutes of work each day. Moderating a newsgroup will resolve probably 95% of the junk postings on the USENET distribution. Unfortunately there are easy ways for determined spammers to override the moderation mechanism on USENET, but we can protect our e-mail subscribers from unwanted postings if the newsgroup is moderated. You can also access our newsgroups over the WWW at URL http://www.bio.net. While this Web interface will not stop spammers from trying to post to the groups, this will give you yet another way, besides using USENET news, to keep the junk out of your personal mail files. For those of you with local USENET news systems, the Web interface will also give you faster access to new newsgroups and recent postings. 3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASE NOTE: The BIOSCI management does NOT act on subscription/unsubscription requests that are posted improperly to the newsgroups and mailing lists. People who do this only bother everyone on the lists to no avail. Please be sure to follow the proper procedures below. Gory details are in the BIOSCI Information sheets on the Web at http://www.bio.net. Below we give an example utilizing the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list at both of our two BIOSCI sites: Users in the Americas and Pacific Rim countries who use the BIOSCI ------------------------------------------------------------------ node at computer net.bio.net: ---------------------------- A) Determine the "listname" which is the <=8 character mail address ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ for the group. These can be found in the BIOSCI Info. Sheet. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS group the mailing address is methods@net.bio.net. The listname is the portion of the address to the left of the @ sign, i.e., "methods". The listname is used with the "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" commands illustrated below. B) Mail all commands in the body of a mail message addressed to biosci-server@net.bio.net. Do NOT send commands to the newsgroup posting addresses! Leave the Subject: line blank, any text on it will be ignored. C) In the body of your message put one or more of the following commands with an "end" command on the last line, e.g., subscribe methods unsubscribe methods end Do NOT put your e-mail address or other text on these lines. The server only allows you to cancel your subscription if the address on your mail header matches the address on our mailing list. Please ask for help at biosci-help@net.bio.net if your address has changed, e.g., if you know you are on the list but the server tells you that you are not a member. Users in Europe, Africa, and Central Asia who use the BIOSCI node at -------------------------------------------------------------------- computer daresbury.ac.uk (also known as dl.ac.uk): ------------------------------------------------- To subscribe and unsubscribe to/from the BIOSCI lists, you need to specify the full USENET newsgroup name with "bionet-news." prepended. The USENET newsgroup names are listed in the BIOSCI Information sheet on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list the USENET newsgroup name is bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, thus the appropriate commands are sub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts unsub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts These commands are included in a message addressed to mxt@dl.ac.uk, NOT to the newsgroup mailing addresses. As usual, include the text in the body of the message as text on the Subject: line is ignored. To unsubscribe from all the lists at the UK node, use unsub bionet-news Please note that if the address in the list is different than the one in your mail message header, you will not be able to unsubscribe by this method. If you have problems, please mail biosci@daresbury.ac.uk. 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. ----------------------------------------------------------- Please take this opportunity to add your name, address, and research interest information to the BIOSCI User Address Database if you have not already done so. You can fill out the address form directly through our Web page at URL http://www.bio.net/adrform.html. The address database is reindexed nightly for WWW access (the URL is http://www.bio.net/). If you are not directly on the Internet but can reach it by e-mail, please use our waismail server to access the user directory. waismail use is described above. You can also request a user address form by e-mail from biosci-help@net.bio.net. Please check your database entry from time-to-time to see if your address information is still up-to-date. Because of our limited personnel resources, we ask that you resubmit a *complete* form to revise your entry; we only replace complete entries and do not have resources to edit old forms. -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Sat Dec 13 13:32:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id NAA01003 Message-Id: <199712132132.NAA01003@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 12:48:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Aaron Bartholomew Subject: Hesionids Hi, I am attempting to construct a key to polychaetes of Virginia, and I was wondering if anyone out there could help me find references with key characteristics of Microphthalmus fragilis and Microphthalmus similis. Also, what is the current name of Gyptis brevipalpa? I was told it might now be called Podarkeopsis levifuscina, but I can't verify that. Thanks in advance, happy holidays! -Aaron Aaron Bartholomew -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Mon Dec 15 06:59:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id GAA22328 Message-Id: <199712151459.GAA22328@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:28:48 +0100 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Mats Eriksson Subject: Polychaete jaw composition Dear polychaete researchers, I am a research student from Sweden who would be very grateful if anyone could help me finding literature dealing with the chemical composition of polychaete jaws. Especially if there are recent publications in the subject. I have seen some older papers by e.g., Colbath, Wolf, Michel, and Olive. Many thanks in advance. Mats Eriksson Department of Geology Lund University Soelvegatan 13 S-223 62 Lund Sweden e-mail: Mats.Eriksson@geol.lu.se -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 16 12:54:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id MAA27566 Message-Id: <199712162054.MAA27566@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Chris Emblow" Subject: Ecologist job offer Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:15:10 -0000 Position Available - Ecologist EcoServe (Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd) is a new Irish environmental research and consultancy company specialising in marine and freshwater ecology. At present the company leads consortia conducting research for the European Commission FAIR and MAST programmes and the EPA in Ireland. EcoServe is a partner in several other EU and national research projects and also conducts work for government authorities and industry in Ireland. New staff are required to assist existing and forthcoming projects. The ideal candidate will be committed to a career in environmental research and consulting and be able to develop their own niche in the company (i.e. obtain contracts in their own area of expertise). Applicants must: a.. have graduate experience in environmental work b.. have fieldwork experience c.. have proven skills in writing scientific reports d.. enjoy working as part of a team and as an individual e.. be able to work to tight time schedules f.. have good communication and networking skills g.. be proficient in the use of spreadsheets and word-processing packages h.. have a full drivers licence Applicants would ideally have experience in some of the following: a.. intertidal ecology b.. analysis of ecological data c.. use of databases d.. geographical information systems e.. nutrient processes in aquatic ecosytems f.. boat handling g.. SCUBA diving (qualification) Experience in other areas of ecology (terrestrial, freshwater, subtidal marine) and environmental sciences (ecotoxicology and nature conservation) is also of interest with a view to expanding expertise in the company. Salary is negotiable but expected to be in the region of stlg11,000 to stlg17,000. Applications are invited as soon as possible. Review of applicants will begin on 14th January 1998 and will cease when the post has been filled. Appointment will be subject to a probationary period. Applicants should post or e-mail a detailed curriculum vitae (with contact details of 2 or 3 relevant referees) to Ms J. Dowse, EcoServe, CESL, 17 Rathfarnham Road, Terenure, Dublin 6W (jdowse@ecoserve.ie). A covering letter should summarise experience and interests relevant to the position. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Emblow, Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (EcoServe), Community Enterprise Society Limited 17, Rathfarnham Road, Terenure, IRELAND. Fax: +353-1-4903238 Tel: +353-1-4903237 Mobile: 087-239 3750 http://www.ecoserve.ie E-mail cemblow@ecoserve.ie -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 16 12:54:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id MAA27565 Message-Id: <199712162054.MAA27565@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: Department of Zoology Invertebrate MSU From: "dep.inv.zoology" Date: Tue, 16 Dec 97 13:03:27 +0300 Subject: Marine Aquariums Dear colleagues! I am an undergraduate student of Moscow University. I am studying the benthic fauna of marine tropical aquariums. Mainly I am interested in small polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs and nematodes. As it is impossible to figure out where the animals are from, I have difficulties with identifications. Any advice, information or other help would be greatly appreciated. If anyone is working with similar subjects, I would be very interested in keeping contacts. Thank you in advance. Margarita Shabanova Department of Invertebrate Zoology Biological Faculty Moscow State University Moscow 119899 Russia e-mail: rita@1.inv.bio.msu.ru -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Thu Dec 18 12:55:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id MAA11826 Message-Id: <199712182055.MAA11826@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Helmut Zibrowius" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 18 Dec 97 15:34:22 MST Subject: Sabella spallanzanii On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:03:25 +1100, Geoff Read wrote: >Robin Wilson wrote: >> Greg Parry at MAFRI discovered also that Sabella >> spallanzanii is distasteful to most common PPB fish species ... > >Ermm, does he know about Gambi et al., 1994:597 in the 4th IPC vol.? I >quote: "The use of this species as a bait by anglers is limited to some >localities in Sardinia ... It seems particularly suitable as bait for >catching large Sparidae (Righini, 1991). The potential for a larger market >for this species is supported by the results of some preliminary tests ..." when I went diving in Marseille harbour, I saw an old angler on the quay. Seeing him there, I felt safer for my car and I wanted to be kind to him. So I proposed him to get some of these big worms for him, for bait. But he said that fish do not like it. However, specimens can be found that have incomplete or regenerating tentacle crowns. Probably bitten away by mistake before the fish noticed the full taste? ----------------------------------- Helmut ZIBROWIUS (Centre d'Oceanologie de Marseille) Station Marine d'Endoume Rue Batterie des Lions 13007 Marseille / France E-MAIL: hzibrowi@com.univ-mrs.fr TEL: within France 0491041624 from abroad +33 491041624 FAX: within France 0491041635 from abroad +33 491041635 --------------------------------------------------------- -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Sat Dec 20 16:09:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id QAA27564 Message-Id: <199712210009.QAA27564@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Paulo da Cunha Lana" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Subject: Sixth International Polychaete Conference Update Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 09:20:13 -0200 Dear colleagues, I have some updated information re the Sixth International Polychaete Conference, to be held in Curitiba from 2 to 7 August 1998. Please read it carefully and contact me if you have any doubts. Sending of definitive registration form with submission of abstracts and payment of registration fee is postponed to 20 February 1998. PLEASE do not miss this deadline, since booking of hotels and final conference arrangements will heavily depend on your input. Early booking is strongly recommended as on-site availability of selected hotels and other facilities cannot be guaranteed. Please fill out ALL the spaces of the form and remember that all the information we are going to receive will be considered DEFINITIVE. There was a general (and justifiable) uproar from the polychaetological community re the space originally scheduled to poster display (1.00 x 1.00 m, as stated in the second circular). We are glad to inform that from now on you will be able to display your beautiful pictures, graphs and texts in a space of 1.77 (length) x 0.86 m (height). We will have at least two 'officially' scheduled sessions for poster presentations; however, it is our intention to leave posters on display for at least two or three days. The second circular stated that the "organizing committee strongly suggests that taxonomic descriptions or revisions be displayed as posters". The choice of the word "strongly" was a most unfortunate one - please forget it. In this peculiar case, we were thinking about `alpha' taxonomy or descriptions of a single or a few new species which may be of limited general interest for the audience. In fact, this point-of-view is shared by many of our colleagues, including taxonomists. However, other types of taxonomic contributions will be warmly welcome as oral ones. We are convinced that you will have the ability to recognize if your contribution is suitable to be presented as a 20-minute talk. However, people from organizing committees of scientific meetings have always the difficult (and rather antipathetic) task to accommodate a surplus of oral contributions within a limited time-schedule. If this happens, the Organizing Committee will suggest that some contributions be presented as posters, with the ad hoc help of the Advisory Council of the International Polychaetological Association. With all my best wishes and seasons greetings, Paulo Lana lana@aica.cem.ufpr.br ipc6@aica.cem.ufpr.br ipc6@cce.ufpr.br -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- . There are at least two small markets, besides some very simple restaurants (average price of meals from US $ 5 to US $ 15) at a walking distance from the Center. APPLICATION FORM POLYCHAETE CLADISTICS AN ADVANCED COURSE PONTAL DO SUL, PARANA, BRAZIL 10-21 AUGUST 1998 APPLICATION FORM (please type or print and fill out ALL the spaces) Surname/Family name: _________________________________ First name: __________________________________________ Work address: _______________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Work phone (international version): + _____________________ Fax (international): + __________________________________ E-mail:_______________________________ Provide further details of your professional status: ____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Registration Fee US $ _700.00 Payment should be submitted using one of the following means: Deposit in the bank account: NIMAD-UFPR, Banco do Brasil, no. 25111-9 - Agencia 3184/4 - Curitiba, Brazil (please fax the receipt of your deposit) Credit cards: MasterCard, Diners International and Visa. Please charge my card: Total _US $ 700.00 ___Visa ___Mastercard ___Diners No. __________________________ Expiry date ____________________ Date __/__/__ Signature __________________ Please return this form (by e-mail or fax) to: Paulo da Cunha Lana Centro de Estudos do Mar - Universidade Federal do Parana Av. Beira-Mar, s/n 83255-000 Pontal do Sul - Parana - Brazil Tel + 55 41 4551333 Fax + 55 41 4551105 lana@aica.cem.ufpr.br ipc6@aica.cem.ufpr.br ipc6@cce.ufpr.br -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Sun Dec 21 18:14:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id SAA26791 Message-Id: <199712220214.SAA26791@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:51:40 +1100 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Greg Rouse Subject: Polychaete cladistics Dear Colleagues, The most recent issue of Zoologica Scripta (issue 2, 1997) contains two papers by myself and Kristian Fauchald. The first: Fauchald K, Rouse GW. 1997. Polychaete systematics: Past and present. Zoologica Scripta 26: 71-138. contains a review of polychaete morphology and systematics. It also contains a summary of each family that Kristian and I regarded as 'valid' in a taxonomic sense (though by no means necessarily monophyletic). The second paper: Rouse GW, Fauchald K. 1997. Cladistics and polychaetes. Zoologica Scripta 26: 139-204. contains a variety of cladistic analyses on the status and membership of the Annelida and Polychaeta. There are two extensive data matrices in this paper. They are downloadable through the following address: http://wallace.bio.usyd.edu.au/papers/gregr/ The matrices are in either Nexus format (used by MacClade and PAUP) or Hennig86 format. If there are any problems or questions please don't hesistate to contact me or Kristian (FAUCHALD.KRISTIAN@NMNH.SI.EDU). An announcement concerning the availability of reprints will be forthcoming. We look forward to a 'healthy' response. enjoy (?) greg Greg Rouse School of Biological Sciences A08 University of Sydney N.S.W. 2006 Australia Tel. (02) 9351 5571 Fax (02) 9351 4119 International: 61 2 replaces 02 -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Mon Dec 22 20:11:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id UAA15605 Message-Id: <199712230411.UAA15605@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Geoff Read" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Organization: NIWA (Nat. Inst. Water & Atmos. Research) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 16:22:17 +1100 Subject: New Polychaete Researchers Online Dear Annelida folk, http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/pro.html Polychaete Researchers Online has been thoroughly revised and is presented in a new format which should be even easier to use and, perhaps more importantly, easy to update and insert new entries. So don't hold back - send me an e-mail and add yourself to the list. I'll try to get updates online more or less immediately from now on. For the diehards preferring hardcopy there is a downloadable zipped version formatted for printing. A couple of minor hints ... If the frames are not the correct size for your monitor it's easy to resize them by click-and-drag of the borders. And if you go to someone's web page and want to make it full size (get rid of my frame and cruise the new site) then press the back button (or alt-LeftArrow), copy the link you had clicked on originally (usually a right mouse button option), paste it into the edit window and press return. Zap ... you're there. Or another technique would be to create a bookmark/favourite without moving back (right click within the frame, or use the menu). Happy Christmas and best wishes for a productive and successful 1998 to you all. Geoff -- Geoff Read -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 23 12:29:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id MAA11132 Message-Id: <199712232029.MAA11132@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:21:50 -0500 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Kristian Fauchald Subject: New Polychaete Researchers Online -Reply I believe I speak for the whole polychaete community when I thank Geoff for his work on the annelid list. He has done a fabulous job and deserves some sort of celebration on occasion. Maybe we can celebrate him a bit in Brazil when we meet there? At any rate, I wish you all, and especially Geoff, Happy Holidays and a productive new year! Kristian Fauchald (p.t. pres of the polychaetology association) -- ANNELIDA LIST Discuss = = talk to all members Server = = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Thu Dec 25 12:30:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id MAA00282 Message-Id: <199712252030.MAA00282@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net From: "Petersen, Mary Elizabeth" Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net Subject: Re: New Polychaete Researchers Online -Reply Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:35:00 +0100 25 December 1997 Dear Colleagues, I would like to heartily second Kristian's suggestion of a celebration for Geoff. His many contributions for improving communication among polychaetologists - from the first e-mail CHAETOZONE Newsletter to the ANNELIDA discussion group and all the goodies he has assembled at our website - have decidedly made our life a lot easier and us better informed, and his initiatives and numerous tips on how to make things work are a constant help for those of us less well versed in the intricacies of utilizing the internet. Geoff, thank you for many good suggestions and all the presents you have given us throughout the years! My apologies to those of you who have had trouble reaching me the past few weeks. My mail connection has been very unstable, so I haven't always gotten things on time, on the first try, or at all. Things should eventually improve when I am switched over to another mail system, so please keep on trying - I appreciate your feedback. Season's Greetings to all of you and many thanks for providing worms, help and information of various sorts in the past year! I hope 1998 will be a healthy and happy year for all of us! The very best wishes to everyone, especially Geoff, Mary E. Petersen -------------------------- mepetersen@zmuc.ku.dk --------------------------------------- >From: Kristian Fauchald >Subject: New Polychaete Researchers Online -Reply >Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 2:21PM > >I believe I speak for the whole polychaete community when I thank Geoff >for his work on the annelid list. He has done a fabulous job and >deserves some sort of celebration on occasion. Maybe we can celebrate >him a bit in Brazil when we meet there? > >At any rate, I wish you all, and especially Geoff, Happy Holidays and a >productive new year! > >Kristian Fauchald (p.t. pres of the polychaetology association) -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html -- From daemon Tue Dec 30 17:36:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12-r-beta/8.6.6) id RAA11456 Message-Id: <199712310136.RAA11456@net.bio.net> To: annelida@net.bio.net Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:19:40 -0800 Reply-To: annelida@net.bio.net From: Kirk Fitzhugh Subject: Laonome elegans Dear Annelidans: I am trying to locate the types of the sabellid, Laonome elegans Gravier, 1906, from the Red Sea. I would like to know if this species is at the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, but I don't know who to contact. Can anyone suggest a person that might be in charge of the polychaete collection? Thanks much and happy holidays, Kirk Fitzhugh ------------------------------------------ Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D. Associate Curator of Polychaetes Research & Collections Branch Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 900 Exposition Blvd Los Angeles CA 90007 Phone: 213-763-3233 FAX: 213-746-2999 e-mail: fitzhugh@bcf.usc.edu ------------------------------------------ -- ANNELIDA Discuss = annelida@net.bio.net = talk to all members Server = biosci-server@net.bio.net = un/subscribes Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/ Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html --