From Stanislas.Dubois from ifremer.fr Mon Feb 4 09:03:47 2008 From: Stanislas.Dubois from ifremer.fr (Stanislas DUBOIS) Date: Mon Feb 4 17:23:06 2008 Subject: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original description Message-ID: <47A71B43.8020109@ifremer.fr> Dear Polychaete lovers, I'm looking for the original descrition of Clymenura polaris (Th?el, 1879). Does someone has ever look at the pictures of C. polaris on MARINE SPECIES website http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=130286? The thing is that the prostomium doesn't look like a Clymenura-like prostomium and there're no picture of the single cirri pygidium to confirm the ID. That's why I need to cheek on the original description and need your help in my quest for truth! Thanks a lot. Stan. -- ______________________________________________________ Stanislas DUBOIS (PhD) Laboratoire DYNECO / Ecologie Benthique IFREMER / Centre de Brest Technopole de Brest-Iroise B.P. 70 - 29280 Plouzan? - FRANCE Tel: (33) 02 98 22 49 18 Fax: (33) 02 98 22 45 48 email: sdubois@ifremer.fr From g.read from niwa.co.nz Thu Feb 7 02:23:11 2008 From: g.read from niwa.co.nz (Geoff Read) Date: Thu Feb 7 02:30:20 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original description In-Reply-To: <47A71B43.8020109@ifremer.fr> References: <47A71B43.8020109@ifremer.fr> Message-ID: <47AB68AE.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> >>> On 5/02/2008 at 3:03 a.m., Stanislas DUBOIS wrote: > Dear Polychaete lovers, > > I'm looking for the original descrition of Clymenura polaris (Th?el, > 1879). Does someone has ever look at the pictures of C. polaris on > MARINE SPECIES website > http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=130286? The > thing is that the prostomium doesn't look like a Clymenura-like > prostomium and there're no picture of the single cirri pygidium to > confirm the ID. > > That's why I need to cheek on the original description and need your > help in my quest for truth! Since the pictures aren't adequate in amount of detail shown for good identification perhaps it doesn't matter if it's not actually Th?el's polaris (whatever its true genus might now be) that is illustrated! The photo source web page lacks the authenticating information which would suggest the polychaetes are named with an accuracy above ecologist-level. Maybe a taxonomist was involved in the original collections, maybe not - I don't readily know yet. Also we don't know who choose to use those photos for that name on marinespecies.org. Knowing how these things happen I expect it was more likely just someone building the site who was trawling for any pics that matched the name, rather than evaluation by the 2 distinguished persons named as their polychaete editors by the site. All in all one would be rash to rely uncritically on anything put up anywhere on the internet as a solid worm photo id to species - work by taxonomist members of this list excepted. Stan is doing his bit by investigating something that caught his eye, but probably as I write this someone is putting a dubiously identified worm photo online. Life is short - the internet is bigger by the day. I have some info on the WoRMS project (www.marinespecies.org), apparently recently circulated. Here it is. It came from: Kristen Yarincik Program Manager Census of Marine Life International Secretariat Consortium for Ocean Leadership 1201 New York Avenue, NW, 4th Floor Washington DC, 20005, USA Ph: +1 (202) 448-1237 Fx: +1 (202) 332-9751 Email: kyarincik@OceanLeadership.org ====================== "World Register of Marine Species Lack of standardization in the use and spelling of taxonomic names is a serious problem when integrating data from different sources, or when trying to interpret information found in literature. OBIS [http://www.iobis.org/], in its efforts to integrate data from a vast number of data sets, is confronted with this problem on a daily basis. For this reason, EurOBIS, the European node of OBIS, started compiling a World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS); this register will soon be implemented by OBIS as its taxonomic authority list. Many of the elements for a marine species register are available. Several regional lists have been compiled; other lists have been compiled for specific groups of organisms. Bringing these lists together, harmonizing them and presenting them to end users as a single information system, is a very achievable project, and one that OBIS has taken on itself to achieve, as a contribution to the Census of Marine Life and the Catalogue of Life. We hope that, by the end of 2008, we will have information on at least 200,000 species, which would represent the vast majority of known marine species. Right now, we have information on more than 170,000 taxa; of these, 110,000 are valid species names, well over the first target of 100,000 we set ourselves for the end of 2007. The quality of the register and governance is assured by an Editorial Board, consisting of experts in relevant fields of biology such as taxonomy and in data management. Its main asset will be the large community of taxonomic editors, who will ultimately be responsible for the content and have the tools to edit the database on line. WoRMS is accessible through www.marinespecies.org. Our current database is not complete, and we?re constantly looking for collaborators. If you are a taxonomist studying a marine group, or if you are the custodian of a marine species list, please do get in touch through info@marinespecies.org, or through info@iobis.org. WoRMS is coordinated by a steering committee, co-chaired by Mark Costello and Edward Vanden Berghe; all members of the steering committee are listed on the web site. The technical facilities are developed and maintained at the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ), by Bart Vanhoorne; data management is coordinated by Ward Appeltans. The WoRMS team wishes to acknowledge Species 2000 europa, the Sloan Foundation, Lounsbery Foundation, GBIF and the EU through MarBEF for financial support, and the very many taxonomic editors who have donated their time to this venture. What WoRMS is A growing register of all marine species names, including synonymy and misspellings in common use A tool to assist in standardisation of spelling of taxonomic names A guide to assist in the correct interpretation of taxonomic names found in the literature, and to associate old names with the currently valid one An authoritative register, maintained by the authorities: the content is controlled by taxonomic experts, not by data managers What WoRMS isn?t Complete: we?re working hard to complete the register for an estimated 80% by the end of 2008 - this corresponds with an estimated 200,000 valid names. Without mistakes: not a single non-trivial database is completely error-free. We don?t promise to be perfect, only to be responsive and to make best possible use of any feedback we receive A complete species information system: we?re working together with other organizations and trying to play our own role. The Encyclopedia of Life will build on our efforts through its Catalogue of Life. What you?ll find on www.marinespecies.org Acknowledgement of contribution of everyone involved, on the level of the individual record A detailed edit history of every taxonomic record Links to all sources of information, with many links to the primary literature, where available with links to full text versions of publications Hyperlinks to other on-line data systems A powerful search interface, capable of dealing with the more common misspellings A tool that can check names in an uploaded file against the register ================= -- Geoff Read http://www.annelida.net/ http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/ From evberghe from iobis.org Thu Feb 7 14:24:36 2008 From: evberghe from iobis.org (Edward Vanden Berghe) Date: Thu Feb 7 14:39:25 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original description In-Reply-To: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu> References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Dear all, Fred Grassle passed the mail below on to me. Geoff brings up a very valid point: we don't know at all who posted the picture on the web, and how reliable the identification of the species is. While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all. Maybe at least the name of the person submitting the picture should be made visible on the web site. I also think we need to create a field in the database that indicates whether or not the identification has been confirmed by the taxonomic editor of the group to which the species belongs. More work for Bart? Thanks to all of you for bringing this problem to our attention! Cheers, Edward > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Frederick Grassle [mailto:grassle@marine.rutgers.edu] > Sent: 07 February 2008 10:22 > To: Edward Vanden Berghe > Subject: Fwd: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original > description > > > >Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:23:11 +1300 > >From: "Geoff Read" > >To: "Stanislas DUBOIS" , > > > >Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original > > description > > > >wrote: > > > Dear Polychaete lovers, > > > > > > I'm looking for the original descrition of Clymenura polaris (Th??el, > > > > > 1879). Does someone has ever look at the pictures of C. polaris on > > > MARINE SPECIES website > > > http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=130286? The > > > thing is that the prostomium doesn't look like a Clymenura-like > > > prostomium and there're no picture of the single cirri pygidium to > > > confirm the ID. > > > > > > That's why I need to cheek on the original description and need your > > > > > help in my quest for truth! > > > > > >Since the pictures aren't adequate in amount of detail shown for good > >identification perhaps it doesn't matter if it's not actually Th??el's > >polaris (whatever its true genus might now be) that is illustrated! The > >photo source web page lacks the authenticating information which would > >suggest the polychaetes are named with an accuracy above > >ecologist-level. Maybe a taxonomist was involved in the original > >collections, maybe not - I don't readily know yet. Also we don't know > >who choose to use those photos for that name on marinespecies.org. > >Knowing how these things happen I expect it was more likely just someone > >building the site who was trawling for any pics that matched the name, > >rather than evaluation by the 2 distinguished persons named as their > >polychaete editors by the site. > > > >All in all one would be rash to rely uncritically on anything put up > >anywhere on the internet as a solid worm photo id to species - work by > >taxonomist members of this list excepted. Stan is doing his bit by > >investigating something that caught his eye, but probably as I write > >this someone is putting a dubiously identified worm photo online. Life > >is short - the internet is bigger by the day. > > > >I have some info on the WoRMS project (www.marinespecies.org), > >apparently recently circulated. Here it is. It came from: > > > >Kristen Yarincik > >Program Manager > >Census of Marine Life International Secretariat > >Consortium for Ocean Leadership > >1201 New York Avenue, NW, 4th Floor > >Washington DC, 20005, USA > >Ph: +1 (202) 448-1237 > >Fx: +1 (202) 332-9751 > >Email: kyarincik@OceanLeadership.org > > > > > >====================== > > > >"World Register of Marine Species > > > >Lack of standardization in the use and spelling of taxonomic names is a > >serious problem when integrating data from different sources, or when > >trying to interpret information found in literature. OBIS > >[http://www.iobis.org/], in its efforts to integrate data from a vast > >number of data sets, is confronted with this problem on a daily basis. > >For this reason, EurOBIS, the European node of OBIS, started compiling a > >World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS); this register will soon be > >implemented by OBIS as its taxonomic authority list. > > > >Many of the elements for a marine species register are available. > >Several regional lists have been compiled; other lists have been > >compiled for specific groups of organisms. Bringing these lists > >together, harmonizing them and presenting them to end users as a single > >information system, is a very achievable project, and one that OBIS has > >taken on itself to achieve, as a contribution to the Census of Marine > >Life and the Catalogue of Life. We hope that, by the end of 2008, we > >will have information on at least 200,000 species, which would represent > >the vast majority of known marine species. Right now, we have > >information on more than 170,000 taxa; of these, 110,000 are valid > >species names, well over the first target of 100,000 we set ourselves > >for the end of 2007. > > > >The quality of the register and governance is assured by an Editorial > >Board, consisting of experts in relevant fields of biology such as > >taxonomy and in data management. Its main asset will be the large > >community of taxonomic editors, who will ultimately be responsible for > >the content and have the tools to edit the database on line. > > > >WoRMS is accessible through www.marinespecies.org. Our current database > >is not complete, and we???re constantly looking for collaborators. If > >you are a taxonomist studying a marine group, or if you are the > >custodian of a marine species list, please do get in touch through > >info@marinespecies.org, or through info@iobis.org. > > > >WoRMS is coordinated by a steering committee, co-chaired by Mark > >Costello and Edward Vanden Berghe; all members of the steering committee > >are listed on the web site. The technical facilities are developed and > >maintained at the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ), by Bart Vanhoorne; > >data management is coordinated by Ward Appeltans. The WoRMS team wishes > >to acknowledge Species 2000 europa, the Sloan Foundation, Lounsbery > >Foundation, GBIF and the EU through MarBEF for financial support, and > >the very many taxonomic editors who have donated their time to this > >venture. > > > > > >What WoRMS is > > > >A growing register of all marine species names, including synonymy and > >misspellings in common use > >A tool to assist in standardisation of spelling of taxonomic names > >A guide to assist in the correct interpretation of taxonomic names > >found in the literature, and to associate old names with the currently > >valid one > >An authoritative register, maintained by the authorities: the content > >is controlled by taxonomic experts, not by data managers > > > >What WoRMS isn???t > > > >Complete: we???re working hard to complete the register for an > >estimated 80% by the end of 2008 - this corresponds with an estimated > >200,000 valid names. > >Without mistakes: not a single non-trivial database is completely > >error-free. We don???t promise to be perfect, only to be responsive and > >to make best possible use of any feedback we receive > >A complete species information system: we???re working together with > >other organizations and trying to play our own role. The Encyclopedia of > >Life will build on our efforts through its Catalogue of Life. > > > >What you???ll find on www.marinespecies.org > > > >Acknowledgement of contribution of everyone involved, on the level of > >the individual record > >A detailed edit history of every taxonomic record > >Links to all sources of information, with many links to the primary > >literature, where available with links to full text versions of > >publications > >Hyperlinks to other on-line data systems > >A powerful search interface, capable of dealing with the more common > >misspellings > >A tool that can check names in an uploaded file against the register > > > >================= > > > > > > > >-- > > > > Geoff Read > > http://www.annelida.net/ > > http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Annelida mailing list > >Post: Annelida@net.bio.net > >Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida > >Resources: http://www.annelida.net From FAUCHALD from si.edu Thu Feb 7 16:15:37 2008 From: FAUCHALD from si.edu (Fauchald, Kristian) Date: Thu Feb 7 16:21:54 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: <006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu> <006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Message-ID: <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> Dear all, Yes, this is definitely a problem and one that we need to solve somehow. Names used on pictures must be qualified to the same extent a citation is, and perhaps even more rigorously (a picture is worth a thousand words) We need to record not only who took the pictures, but also who identified the worm (in case it was a different person) and if the pioture is vouchered by specimens in a collection somewhere. And I do not mean a reference to the type material, but a reference to the material that was photographed. In this case we know for example that the specimens had been carefully removed from the sediment and posed for their portrait, so it would not have been too complicated to fix some of the specimens and send them off to some collection somewhere. This is an entirely parallel case to the vouchering we now have of material used for molecular systematics and for barcoding, and perhaps even more likely to lead to mischief (or misidentification if you will). Kristian Fauchald -----Original Message----- From: annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Vanden Berghe Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:25 PM To: 'J. Frederick Grassle'; g.read@niwa.co.nz; Stanislas.Dubois@ifremer.fr; annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu Cc: 'World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS)' Subject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Dear all, Fred Grassle passed the mail below on to me. Geoff brings up a very valid point: we don't know at all who posted the picture on the web, and how reliable the identification of the species is. While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all. Maybe at least the name of the person submitting the picture should be made visible on the web site. I also think we need to create a field in the database that indicates whether or not the identification has been confirmed by the taxonomic editor of the group to which the species belongs. More work for Bart? Thanks to all of you for bringing this problem to our attention! Cheers, Edward > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Frederick Grassle [mailto:grassle@marine.rutgers.edu] > Sent: 07 February 2008 10:22 > To: Edward Vanden Berghe > Subject: Fwd: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original > description > > > >Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:23:11 +1300 > >From: "Geoff Read" > >To: "Stanislas DUBOIS" , > > > >Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris original > > description > > > >wrote: > > > Dear Polychaete lovers, > > > > > > I'm looking for the original descrition of Clymenura polaris (Th??el, > > > > > 1879). Does someone has ever look at the pictures of C. polaris on > > > MARINE SPECIES website > > > http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=130286? The > > > thing is that the prostomium doesn't look like a Clymenura-like > > > prostomium and there're no picture of the single cirri pygidium to > > > confirm the ID. > > > > > > That's why I need to cheek on the original description and need your > > > > > help in my quest for truth! > > > > > >Since the pictures aren't adequate in amount of detail shown for good > >identification perhaps it doesn't matter if it's not actually Th??el's > >polaris (whatever its true genus might now be) that is illustrated! The > >photo source web page lacks the authenticating information which would > >suggest the polychaetes are named with an accuracy above > >ecologist-level. Maybe a taxonomist was involved in the original > >collections, maybe not - I don't readily know yet. Also we don't know > >who choose to use those photos for that name on marinespecies.org. > >Knowing how these things happen I expect it was more likely just someone > >building the site who was trawling for any pics that matched the name, > >rather than evaluation by the 2 distinguished persons named as their > >polychaete editors by the site. > > > >All in all one would be rash to rely uncritically on anything put up > >anywhere on the internet as a solid worm photo id to species - work by > >taxonomist members of this list excepted. Stan is doing his bit by > >investigating something that caught his eye, but probably as I write > >this someone is putting a dubiously identified worm photo online. Life > >is short - the internet is bigger by the day. > > > >I have some info on the WoRMS project (www.marinespecies.org), > >apparently recently circulated. Here it is. It came from: > > > >Kristen Yarincik > >Program Manager > >Census of Marine Life International Secretariat > >Consortium for Ocean Leadership > >1201 New York Avenue, NW, 4th Floor > >Washington DC, 20005, USA > >Ph: +1 (202) 448-1237 > >Fx: +1 (202) 332-9751 > >Email: kyarincik@OceanLeadership.org > > > > > >====================== > > > >"World Register of Marine Species > > > >Lack of standardization in the use and spelling of taxonomic names is a > >serious problem when integrating data from different sources, or when > >trying to interpret information found in literature. OBIS > >[http://www.iobis.org/], in its efforts to integrate data from a vast > >number of data sets, is confronted with this problem on a daily basis. > >For this reason, EurOBIS, the European node of OBIS, started compiling a > >World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS); this register will soon be > >implemented by OBIS as its taxonomic authority list. > > > >Many of the elements for a marine species register are available. > >Several regional lists have been compiled; other lists have been > >compiled for specific groups of organisms. Bringing these lists > >together, harmonizing them and presenting them to end users as a single > >information system, is a very achievable project, and one that OBIS has > >taken on itself to achieve, as a contribution to the Census of Marine > >Life and the Catalogue of Life. We hope that, by the end of 2008, we > >will have information on at least 200,000 species, which would represent > >the vast majority of known marine species. Right now, we have > >information on more than 170,000 taxa; of these, 110,000 are valid > >species names, well over the first target of 100,000 we set ourselves > >for the end of 2007. > > > >The quality of the register and governance is assured by an Editorial > >Board, consisting of experts in relevant fields of biology such as > >taxonomy and in data management. Its main asset will be the large > >community of taxonomic editors, who will ultimately be responsible for > >the content and have the tools to edit the database on line. > > > >WoRMS is accessible through www.marinespecies.org. Our current database > >is not complete, and we???re constantly looking for collaborators. If > >you are a taxonomist studying a marine group, or if you are the > >custodian of a marine species list, please do get in touch through > >info@marinespecies.org, or through info@iobis.org. > > > >WoRMS is coordinated by a steering committee, co-chaired by Mark > >Costello and Edward Vanden Berghe; all members of the steering committee > >are listed on the web site. The technical facilities are developed and > >maintained at the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ), by Bart Vanhoorne; > >data management is coordinated by Ward Appeltans. The WoRMS team wishes > >to acknowledge Species 2000 europa, the Sloan Foundation, Lounsbery > >Foundation, GBIF and the EU through MarBEF for financial support, and > >the very many taxonomic editors who have donated their time to this > >venture. > > > > > >What WoRMS is > > > >A growing register of all marine species names, including synonymy and > >misspellings in common use > >A tool to assist in standardisation of spelling of taxonomic names > >A guide to assist in the correct interpretation of taxonomic names > >found in the literature, and to associate old names with the currently > >valid one > >An authoritative register, maintained by the authorities: the content > >is controlled by taxonomic experts, not by data managers > > > >What WoRMS isn???t > > > >Complete: we???re working hard to complete the register for an > >estimated 80% by the end of 2008 - this corresponds with an estimated > >200,000 valid names. > >Without mistakes: not a single non-trivial database is completely > >error-free. We don???t promise to be perfect, only to be responsive and > >to make best possible use of any feedback we receive > >A complete species information system: we???re working together with > >other organizations and trying to play our own role. The Encyclopedia of > >Life will build on our efforts through its Catalogue of Life. > > > >What you???ll find on www.marinespecies.org > > > >Acknowledgement of contribution of everyone involved, on the level of > >the individual record > >A detailed edit history of every taxonomic record > >Links to all sources of information, with many links to the primary > >literature, where available with links to full text versions of > >publications > >Hyperlinks to other on-line data systems > >A powerful search interface, capable of dealing with the more common > >misspellings > >A tool that can check names in an uploaded file against the register > > > >================= > > > > > > > >-- > > > > Geoff Read > > http://www.annelida.net/ > > http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Annelida mailing list > >Post: Annelida@net.bio.net > >Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida > >Resources: http://www.annelida.net _______________________________________________ Annelida mailing list Post: Annelida@net.bio.net Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida Resources: http://www.annelida.net From njmaciolek from gmail.com Thu Feb 7 16:38:48 2008 From: njmaciolek from gmail.com (Nancy Maciolek) Date: Thu Feb 7 16:53:11 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu> <006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> Message-ID: <954d2baa0802071338n7b0f19ffpabff44879abb5eba@mail.gmail.com> Edward wrote: "While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all." Why not restrict the posting of pictures in the same way that you restrict editing of text? Alternatively, put the pictures in a moderation queue so that they do not appear automatically, but only after they have been approved. There is no advantage to building a pictorial database quickly if it contains errors, whether small or egregious. best wishes, Nancy Nancy J. Maciolek, Ph.D. Polychaete Editor, Zootaxa http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080207/4fc3aa02/attachment.html From savs551216 from hotmail.com Thu Feb 7 17:20:19 2008 From: savs551216 from hotmail.com (Sergio Salazar) Date: Thu Feb 7 17:23:56 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: <954d2baa0802071338n7b0f19ffpabff44879abb5eba@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu> <006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> <954d2baa0802071338n7b0f19ffpabff44879abb5eba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear friends, Most of the pictures available in internet cannot be linked to a voucher specimen. After several unsuccessful attempts to get some deep water specimens, nicely photographed in several websites, Leslie Harris has told me that most photographers of underwater creatures feel better by making the photographs than collecting, killing, and preserving the specimen. I have noticed that despite the impressive organisms being depicted, there are no means to check some of the certainly less spectacular, but diagnostic features in the specimen, simply because there is no specimen at all. I support Nancy’s and Kristian's suggestion and wish we have more voucher materials backing up both, photographs and ecological studies. Un abrazo, Sergio Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:38:48 -0500From: njmaciolek@gmail.comTo: evberghe@iobis.orgSubject: Re: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescriptionCC: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nzEdward wrote:"While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all."Why not restrict the posting of pictures in the same way that you restrict editing of text? Alternatively, put the pictures in a moderation queue so that they do not appear automatically, but only after they have been approved. There is no advantage to building a pictorial database quickly if it contains errors, whether small or egregious.best wishes,NancyNancy J. Maciolek, Ph.D.Polychaete Editor, Zootaxahttp://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080207/4dfbdb02/attachment.html From evberghe from iobis.org Thu Feb 7 18:27:25 2008 From: evberghe from iobis.org (Edward Vanden Berghe) Date: Thu Feb 7 19:33:00 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu><006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> <954d2baa0802071338n7b0f19ffpabff44879abb5eba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009901c869e0$ffae8f80$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Hi all, The most important thing, IMHO, is not to have voucher specimens or expert identification with each and every picture, but to offer visitors to the web site a clear and objective way of judging the degree of belief they should attach to an identification. Obviously the gold standard is a picture of a voucher specimen identified by an acknowledged authority. We have some pictures like that, but unfortunately only a very small fraction of our collection meets that standard. As long as we make sure that end users know what degree of confidence they can have in de identification, I don't see a problem in this. This being said, I like the idea of a 'moderated' list - where everyone can submit, but pictures are only shown after the taxonomist has 'approved' the identification. An intermediate solution could be to hide un-moderated pictures by default, and only show them after the user has been made to see a health warning. There are tables to store information on specimens - I do not think that these have links to the pictures right now; that is another issue we might want to improve. Also, it's clear that the pictures of specimens, in taxonomic terms, will be more valuable than field pictures. So if we do create links between specimens and pictures, we should look for ways to bring these to the taxon details page, rather than to hide them on the specimens details page, one click away from the main taxon details page. Cheers, Edward _____ From: Sergio Salazar [mailto:savs551216@hotmail.com] Sent: 07 February 2008 17:20 To: Nancy Maciolek; evberghe@iobis.org Cc: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nz Subject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Dear friends, Most of the pictures available in internet cannot be linked to a voucher specimen. After several unsuccessful attempts to get some deep water specimens, nicely photographed in several websites, Leslie Harris has told me that most photographers of underwater creatures feel better by making the photographs than collecting, killing, and preserving the specimen. I have noticed that despite the impressive organisms being depicted, there are no means to check some of the certainly less spectacular, but diagnostic features in the specimen, simply because there is no specimen at all. I support Nancy's and Kristian's suggestion and wish we have more voucher materials backing up both, photographs and ecological studies. Un abrazo, Sergio _____ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:38:48 -0500 From: njmaciolek@gmail.com To: evberghe@iobis.org Subject: Re: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription CC: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nz Edward wrote: "While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all." Why not restrict the posting of pictures in the same way that you restrict editing of text? Alternatively, put the pictures in a moderation queue so that they do not appear automatically, but only after they have been approved. There is no advantage to building a pictorial database quickly if it contains errors, whether small or egregious. best wishes, Nancy Nancy J. Maciolek, Ph.D. Polychaete Editor, Zootaxa http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080207/d7585df1/attachment.html From savs551216 from hotmail.com Thu Feb 7 18:55:16 2008 From: savs551216 from hotmail.com (Sergio Salazar) Date: Thu Feb 7 19:33:30 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: <009901c869e0$ffae8f80$4532a8c0@edwardlt> References: <20080207152213.8F6542F81F5@grove.marine.rutgers.edu><006e01c869bf$140ee690$4532a8c0@edwardlt> <707264088F25964398B036DDCEB1C0F0035E4520@SI-ECL01.US.SINET.SI.EDU> <954d2baa0802071338n7b0f19ffpabff44879abb5eba@mail.gmail.com> <009901c869e0$ffae8f80$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Message-ID: Dear Edward and colleagues, The study of polychaetes has had a time when most species were regarded as cosmopolitan (capable of living in different temperature, ecological, depth and geographic conditions, in at least three different oceans). Many of them, however, have been shown to include several different species, often distinguishable with ordinary, routine methods. How did we get there? How did we became used to regard many species as cosmopolitans? There were probably at least two interconnected factors being involved. One was the scarcity of regional monographs, such that the names contained in the few available ones became widespread. The other was that most people were working on ecological studies, with little or no time or interest for taxonomical issues. We now have much more regional works, and revisions are being prepared and published at an impressive rate. However, most people working on invertebrates are doing ecological work, and many are facing problems connected with non-indigenous species. If the taxonomic revisions are not available for them, what will they do to get some ids? Believe it or not, many are using the websites to find some names for their organisms, no matter what the type locality conditions are. Thus, it is not surprising that cosmopolitan species will re-appear as exotics but, again, there might be several species being involved under the same name. In any case, please notice that regretfully ecological journals do not require either the deposit of voucher materials, or the indication of the identification guides employed to compile the species names. A suggestion to acknowledge the source for the names, either from your website or from any other means, electronic or traditional, would be helpful for any future studies. Best wishes, Sergio From: evberghe@iobis.orgTo: savs551216@hotmail.com; njmaciolek@gmail.comCC: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nzSubject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescriptionDate: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:27:25 -0500 Hi all, The most important thing, IMHO, is not to have voucher specimens or expert identification with each and every picture, but to offer visitors to the web site a clear and objective way of judging the degree of belief they should attach to an identification. Obviously the gold standard is a picture of a voucher specimen identified by an acknowledged authority. We have some pictures like that, but unfortunately only a very small fraction of our collection meets that standard. As long as we make sure that end users know what degree of confidence they can have in de identification, I don’t see a problem in this. This being said, I like the idea of a ‘moderated’ list – where everyone can submit, but pictures are only shown after the taxonomist has ‘approved’ the identification. An intermediate solution could be to hide un-moderated pictures by default, and only show them after the user has been made to see a health warning. There are tables to store information on specimens – I do not think that these have links to the pictures right now; that is another issue we might want to improve. Also, it’s clear that the pictures of specimens, in taxonomic terms, will be more valuable than field pictures. So if we do create links between specimens and pictures, we should look for ways to bring these to the taxon details page, rather than to hide them on the specimens details page, one click away from the main taxon details page. Cheers, Edward From: Sergio Salazar [mailto:savs551216@hotmail.com] Sent: 07 February 2008 17:20To: Nancy Maciolek; evberghe@iobis.orgCc: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nzSubject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Dear friends, Most of the pictures available in internet cannot be linked to a voucher specimen. After several unsuccessful attempts to get some deep water specimens, nicely photographed in several websites, Leslie Harris has told me that most photographers of underwater creatures feel better by making the photographs than collecting, killing, and preserving the specimen. I have noticed that despite the impressive organisms being depicted, there are no means to check some of the certainly less spectacular, but diagnostic features in the specimen, simply because there is no specimen at all. I support Nancy’s and Kristian's suggestion and wish we have more voucher materials backing up both, photographs and ecological studies. Un abrazo, Sergio Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:38:48 -0500From: njmaciolek@gmail.comTo: evberghe@iobis.orgSubject: Re: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescriptionCC: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nzEdward wrote:"While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all."Why not restrict the posting of pictures in the same way that you restrict editing of text? Alternatively, put the pictures in a moderation queue so that they do not appear automatically, but only after they have been approved. There is no advantage to building a pictorial database quickly if it contains errors, whether small or egregious.best wishes,NancyNancy J. Maciolek, Ph.D.Polychaete Editor, Zootaxahttp://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080207/e55f5295/attachment.html From info from marinespecies.org Fri Feb 8 06:11:57 2008 From: info from marinespecies.org (World Register of Marine Species) Date: Fri Feb 8 07:19:07 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription In-Reply-To: <009901c869e0$ffae8f80$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Message-ID: <004801c86a43$6b163630$3700a8c0@vliz.be> Dear everyone Your points are taken. We will develop the possibility to add pictures to voucher specimen information (there are others who have requested this as well, so actually it was on our to-do list). The major source of pictures in WoRMS comes from the MarBEF speciesgallery: http://www.marbef.org/speciesgallery, where everyone can submit pictures of species and they have the possibility to link them to a species name in our database. We thought we should build an email warning system once a picture is uploaded, so that the taxonomic editor can verify the identity. But I also agree that we should only show pictures on our species register once they have been vetted by the taxonomic experts. As a taxonomic expert you can now already add/edit and delete pictures. Actually only experts can add pictures via WoRMS. I resume: Taxonomic experts only can add pictures via WoRMS and these immediately appear on the website. Pictures added via MarBEF or other sources to our pictures database are only displayed in WoRMS after a quality check by the experts. for the near future, Best regards, Ward WoRMS data manager ------------- Ward Appeltans Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee Flanders Marine Institute VLIZ - InnovOcean site Wandelaarkaai 7, 8400 Oostende Belgium Web: http://www.vliz.be Phone: +32(0)59/34 01 55 Email: ward.appeltans@vliz.be ------------- _____ From: Edward Vanden Berghe [mailto:evberghe@iobis.org] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:27 AM To: 'Sergio Salazar'; 'Nancy Maciolek' Cc: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nz Subject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Hi all, The most important thing, IMHO, is not to have voucher specimens or expert identification with each and every picture, but to offer visitors to the web site a clear and objective way of judging the degree of belief they should attach to an identification. Obviously the gold standard is a picture of a voucher specimen identified by an acknowledged authority. We have some pictures like that, but unfortunately only a very small fraction of our collection meets that standard. As long as we make sure that end users know what degree of confidence they can have in de identification, I don't see a problem in this. This being said, I like the idea of a 'moderated' list - where everyone can submit, but pictures are only shown after the taxonomist has 'approved' the identification. An intermediate solution could be to hide un-moderated pictures by default, and only show them after the user has been made to see a health warning. There are tables to store information on specimens - I do not think that these have links to the pictures right now; that is another issue we might want to improve. Also, it's clear that the pictures of specimens, in taxonomic terms, will be more valuable than field pictures. So if we do create links between specimens and pictures, we should look for ways to bring these to the taxon details page, rather than to hide them on the specimens details page, one click away from the main taxon details page. Cheers, Edward _____ From: Sergio Salazar [mailto:savs551216@hotmail.com] Sent: 07 February 2008 17:20 To: Nancy Maciolek; evberghe@iobis.org Cc: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nz Subject: RE: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Dear friends, Most of the pictures available in internet cannot be linked to a voucher specimen. After several unsuccessful attempts to get some deep water specimens, nicely photographed in several websites, Leslie Harris has told me that most photographers of underwater creatures feel better by making the photographs than collecting, killing, and preserving the specimen. I have noticed that despite the impressive organisms being depicted, there are no means to check some of the certainly less spectacular, but diagnostic features in the specimen, simply because there is no specimen at all. I support Nancy's and Kristian's suggestion and wish we have more voucher materials backing up both, photographs and ecological studies. Un abrazo, Sergio _____ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:38:48 -0500 From: njmaciolek@gmail.com To: evberghe@iobis.org Subject: Re: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription CC: annelida@magpie.bio.indiana.edu; info@marinespecies.org; grassle@marine.rutgers.edu; g.read@niwa.co.nz Edward wrote: "While we are very restrictive on who we give edit rights to the taxonomic information, anyone can upload pictures, and put a name on it; and the picture would automatically appear on the authoritative page of the species, thus confounding very rigorously controlled edited content with something over which we have no control at all." Why not restrict the posting of pictures in the same way that you restrict editing of text? Alternatively, put the pictures in a moderation queue so that they do not appear automatically, but only after they have been approved. There is no advantage to building a pictorial database quickly if it contains errors, whether small or egregious. best wishes, Nancy Nancy J. Maciolek, Ph.D. Polychaete Editor, Zootaxa http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080208/0a9a6005/attachment.html From Joseph.M.Vozarik from dom.com Fri Feb 8 09:19:45 2008 From: Joseph.M.Vozarik from dom.com (Joseph.M.Vozarik@dom.com) Date: Fri Feb 8 13:49:13 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription and polychaetes in general In-Reply-To: <009901c869e0$ffae8f80$4532a8c0@edwardlt> Message-ID: Sergio and colleagues, I agree that revisions and papers are being published constantly and perhaps many people are doing ecological research rather than taxonomic studies. Frankly, I have been involved in ecological studies for 30 years and with some great guidance early on have become comfortable in my abilities to identify polychaetes. My main concern is not pictures but the sharing of information and the ability to gather published polychaete works (keys/monographs) to further at least my own knowledge. These works are generally protected by journal subscription and contacting individual authors is time consuming and sometimes authors are unresponsive. We, as people interested in furthering polychaete knowledge and the consistency of identifications need to build or store literature that is open to polychaete researchers. At this time in my life I am particularly interested in putting together a key, both classic and photographic of the polychaete fauna of Long Island Sound. To do this, I am constantly trying to gather polychaete identification literature. To further complicate my task, we see a spread of perhaps rare species from other areas settling in the Sound and the acquisition of literature becomes even more complex. I have followed communications from this forum for a while now ( which by the way is great) and finally feel compelled to speak up or at least share my thoughts. Best wishes, Joe Vozarik ----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. From nbenelia from yahoo.com Fri Feb 8 15:05:31 2008 From: nbenelia from yahoo.com (Nechama Ben-Eliahu) Date: Fri Feb 8 22:02:23 2008 Subject: WoRMS project Re: [Annelida] Clymenura polaris originaldescription Message-ID: <406443.66596.qm@web31402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: This article appeared in the 2006.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: 1850164803-This article appeared in the 2006.doc Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080208/ef8cce0b/Thisarticleappearedinthe2006.bin From g.read from niwa.co.nz Fri Feb 8 22:49:02 2008 From: g.read from niwa.co.nz (Geoff Read) Date: Fri Feb 8 22:52:04 2008 Subject: [Annelida] =?utf-8?q?Conference=3A_=22Bioturbation=3A_An_update_?= =?utf-8?q?on_Darwin=E2=80=99s_last_idea=22?= Message-ID: <47ADD97E.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> FYI Conference: "Bioturbation: An update on Darwin?s last idea" http://www.bioturbation.be/index.htm 23 -27 August 2008, Renesse (The Netherlands) Linking bioturbation, biogeochemistry, and biodiversity A multi-disciplinary update on the mechanism and importance of bioturbation in the marine environment. Session A: Merging ecological and evolutionary perspectives on bioturbation Session B: The role of bioturbation in the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning debate Session C: Novel developments in experimental data acquisition and modeling approaches Session D: The impact of bioturbation from local to global scales -- Geoff Read http://www.annelida.net/ http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/ From rwilson from museum.vic.gov.au Mon Feb 11 19:39:29 2008 From: rwilson from museum.vic.gov.au (Wilson, Robin) Date: Mon Feb 11 21:27:42 2008 Subject: [Annelida] Sabella spallanzanii trivia Message-ID: The Mediterranean fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii) is a well-known introduction via shipping to many ports and harbours in southern Australia (and also to the Canary Islands, Indonesia and Brazil). However, when first discovered, Sabella spallanzanii probably only occurred in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic coast of northern Europe. The species was named after an Italian naturalist Lazzaro Spallanzani, well-known in his day and a widely travelled priest and professor of natural history. Among other achievements Lazzaro Spallanzani disproved the notion that microscopic organisms could spontaneous generate, anticipating by 100 years the work of Louis Pasteur. It has been a minor nuisance to taxonomists that the original (type) specimen used to describe Sabella spallanzanii is lost, however the remains Lazzaro Spallanzani have had greater longevity: a recent issue of Nature reported that the anatomy collection of the University History Museum in Pavia displays the bladder of Lazzaro Spallanzani ! Those with a macabre interest in body parts will have to visit Pavia in northern Italy to view the remains of Professor Spallanzani, but there is a good chance that the worm named after him can be found living on a pier near you (if you live in southern Australia, at least). Have a nice day everyone, Robin Robin Wilson Sciences Department Museum Victoria GPO Box 666E Melbourne Vic 3001 AUSTRALIA phone +61 3 8341 7429 fax +61 3 8341 7442 email rwilson@museum.vic.gov.au museumvictoria.com.au This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential.You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in relianceon or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify postmaster@museum.vic.gov.au by e-mail immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy any copy of this message. Views expressed in this e-mailare those of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum Victoria does not represent,warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free from errors, virus or interference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080212/f27b8600/attachment.html From afarina46 from yahoo.com Tue Feb 12 12:02:12 2008 From: afarina46 from yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?=C1ngel=20Rafael=20Fari=F1a=20Pestano?=) Date: Tue Feb 12 13:36:07 2008 Subject: [Annelida] Polychaeta tesis Message-ID: <452863.3175.qm@web56807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hi. I am starting my doctoral studies in Polychaeta. I need to do a monography about some topic in fisiology in this taxon. Could somebody help me about the specific topic. I hope work in development and systematics, but the monography must be in fisiology, firstly in marine species. Diopatra neapolitana, Lumbrineris impatiens. Arenicola marina y Glycera americana or related species. Thanks ?ngel Fari?a Departamento de Bioqu?mica y Biolog?a Molecular Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Espa?a --------------------------------- ?Capacidad ilimitada de almacenamiento en tu correo! No te preocupes m?s por el espacio de tu cuenta con Correo Yahoo!: http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20080212/298d7091/attachment.html From g.read from niwa.co.nz Tue Feb 12 14:56:07 2008 From: g.read from niwa.co.nz (Geoff Read) Date: Tue Feb 12 15:01:24 2008 Subject: [Annelida] Darwin's 199th Message-ID: <47B2B0A7.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> Hi all, Can't let this go by. Only one year to go till the big one. 1809 February 12, birthday of C. Darwin, the earthworm watcher. http://www.aboutdarwin.com/index.html http://web.visionlearning.com/events/images/DarwinInBirthdayHat.jpg And ... his rather ironic place of internment in 1882. (Unlike Spallanzanii he did not donate any bits elsewhere it seems) http://www.westminster-abbey.org/search/12159?query=darwin&x=11&y=10&page=2 If you want the evolution debate and analysis ... well, you know where to look. Geoff -- Geoff Read http://www.annelida.net/ http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncabb/ From g.read from niwa.co.nz Tue Feb 12 20:08:36 2008 From: g.read from niwa.co.nz (Geoff Read) Date: Tue Feb 12 20:12:02 2008 Subject: [Annelida] Darwin's 199th In-Reply-To: <47B2B0A7.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> References: <47B2B0A7.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> Message-ID: <47B2F9E3.8045.00D5.0@niwa.co.nz> PS: One who should know recommends this book to me: David Quammen, 2006. The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution. W.W. Norton & Company, New York/London. Reviews. this guy seems ambivalent: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/books/review/Desmond.t.html This guy agrees. It's ".... a complete delight." In full because subscription access required. Feel free to pass on to the next email at this point: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1086 "On an autumn day in Chicago in 1959, exactly 100 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, a large and appreciative audience of biologists attended an evolutionary musical called Time Will Tell. Earlier in the day they had heard Julian Huxley, one of the architects of the new evolutionary synthesis, declare that religious belief was merely an adaptive social feature of early mankind. That same year a partial reenactment of the Beagle voyage took place and plans were announced for a Darwin memorial park on the Gal?pagos Islands that meshed with international pressure on Ecuador to restrict commercial fisheries around the archipelago. Anniversaries, commemorations and the public theatre of ceremonies, lectures and prize-givings are, of course, big business and have long been acknowledged as strategic events for promoting culturally and scientifically significant agendas. The fact that Charles Darwin has been as important after his death as during his lifetime comes as no surprise. The theory of evolution by natural selection, jointly proposed by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, is rightly regarded as the foundation stone of modern biology and underpins much of how the human race has come to comprehend itself. As commonly understood, these writings challenged everything that had previously been thought about living beings, firing hot debate in the intellectual, social, and religious transformations of the 19th century. Yet in 1959 religious controversy over Darwinism was relatively muted. The achievements of 20th-century biology were obvious for all to see. Intellectuals like Julian Huxley used the occasion to praise secular humanism and the rigor, honesty, and dedication shown by practitioners of the new laboratory sciences. Biologists demonstrated that it was entirely possible for a scientist to be a nonbeliever and a valuable member of society. Noted clerics in Europe and North America preached reconciliatory sermons. Nowadays, with 2009--a time that will be used to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of publication of the Origin of Species--glimmering on the horizon, it is clear that the shape of the debate has materially changed. Would an evolutionary musical be so loudly applauded today given the other issues currently at stake? While the political and cultural controversy surrounding evolution has flared again, there has been a steady stream of accounts of Darwin's life and ideas written for a broad audience. The latest such work, David Quammen's Reluctant Mr. Darwin, is a complete delight. Renowned as an author and traveler, Quammen earned well-deserved acclaim with The Song of the Dodo, in which he wove together accounts of island biogeography, species extinctions, and Wallace's travels in the Malay archipelago (1). He brings the same flair and fluency to this captivating biographical essay. The book is fresh and original, even to those who have explored other biographies of Darwin published over the last decade or so; readers will find it to be just as insightful as many a heavier tome. Quammen's aim is to open up Darwin's character as a thinking man. He does not take a conventional chronological view from birth to death, nor is he particularly engaged with documenting the emergence of evolutionary biology as a dominant mode of thought. The book is more of a personal reflection on those aspects of Darwin's story that have intrigued him, perhaps as he moved through remote places documenting nature's fecundity or shadowing field workers to describe their adventures and ideas. Quammen leads us through the main features of Darwin's life and thought after his return from the Beagle voyage, building up to Origin of Species (1859). These events are framed by a couple of fascinating chapters, front and back, that set Darwin's achievements in modern context and reveal some of the reasons for the powerful respect that practicing field naturalists and biologists feel for him today. There are many insights along the way. Darwin's time-consuming work on barnacles is described with a deep understanding of why taxonomy matters. Darwin's interactions with Wallace are given clear-eyed examination: the subtle combination of panic, generosity, admiration, and regret that each man displayed toward the other is brought newly alive. And the skills of a novelist creep in. Quammen evokes a pleasing image of Darwin playing billiards--a known historical fact that in Quammen's hands suddenly turns the ill and tormented figure who was slaving away writing Origin of Species into a real person, smoking cigarettes, laying down his cue, joking about his "abominable volume," and telling his friends how refreshing it is to idle the day away. For historical scholars, this has always been one of the most difficult paradoxes: how to connect the man remembered by his friends and family as a warm, even jolly, figure with the nervous invalid documented in contemporary records and the incisive author of Origin of Species. Quammen's gift is to describe these aspects of Darwin's character without resorting to Jekyll and Hyde imagery. Not only does Quammen enrich our understanding of what it must have been like to be Darwin (a quiet, humane, and determined thinker running deliberately against the Victorian intellectual and cultural stream), but he also shows the lasting brilliance of the theories put forward nearly 150 years ago and explains the great affection with which Darwin is still regarded by naturalists today. If you are going to buy only one book to commemorate Darwin in 2009, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin could surely be it." Geoff