Taxonomy Discussion Thread

@Kakapo the main difference between Hoser and the vast, vast majority of taxonomy the majority of ZooChat follows is the presence of real scientific evidence. There are decades worth of real evidence in favor of Koalas not being possums and elephants comprising of three extant species, whereas randomly naming some snakes after your wife (aka yourself) "just becausies" has little to no scientific backing.

~Thylo
 
Kakapo said:
What Hoser's does, if I underestood correctly, is split tons of taxa in an exaggerated quantity and very short amount of time and put them strange names not in the usual construction of scientific names, and also name these taxa honouring non-scientific people and even non-people. Not the same that take a know taxon and just change its name.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what he does :p

For instance, he renamed Crocodylus novaeguineae to "Oopholis adelynhoserae" and Crocodylus johnsoni to "Oopholis jackyhoserae"


ThylacineAlive said:
@Kakapo the main difference between Hoser and the vast, vast majority of taxonomy the majority of ZooChat follows is the presence of real scientific evidence. There are decades worth of real evidence in favor of Koalas not being possums and elephants comprising of three extant species, whereas randomly naming some snakes after your wife (aka yourself) "just becausies" has little to no scientific backing.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

It is also worth noting that taxonomic reassessment and research is grounded on principles such as a certain standard of research, independent peer review and appropriate conduct; I rather think that writing long, run-on sentence rants about your detractors then appending a mention of a new taxon to the end of the rant with the bare minimum of actual discussion or evidence, submitting it to a journal owned and printed by yourself, "peer-reviewing" your own paper in your capacity as the owner of the journal, then self-publishing your paper somehow fails to meet these principles ;) :p

Moreover, because he can rush these papers out at a moments notice, he is known to publish papers on new species another researcher is about to describe and which he has heard about within the timespan between this paper being accepted for publication and being published.... therefore ensuring his own name for the species has priority under the code of the ICZN.
 
Ahhhh, thanks for explanation Dave! I understood that he only splits things (for example spliting Crocodylus novaeguineae in various genera and species, but retaining also the older name). Sorry for my confusion then! That's what I understood from the article.

With the additional things that you mention, it's clear that he is the best example of taxonomic vandal!
 
[Moderator note: this portion of the thread was moved here from this thread: Non-Crane Gruiformes in North American Zoos]


Only trumpeters and rails?????? I'm fairly sure that many American zoos have seriemas, bustards, sunbitterns and kagu, maybe some even have buttonquails. Really none zoo have these other families of the Gruiformes order??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kakapo said:
Only trumpeters and rails?????? I'm fairly sure that many American zoos have seriemas, bustards, sunbitterns and kagu, maybe some even have buttonquails. Really none zoo have these other families of the Gruiformes order??
Click to expand...

None of these are still in the Gruiformes order AFAIK.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
None of these are still in the Gruiformes order AFAIK.
Click to expand...

Well, they are gruiformes, but if birdsandbats don't want to considere them as gruiformes in his thread, he's in his right... I think it's odd, but... let's give him taxonomic freedom.

Maybe we need a third thread called "non-crane, non-trumpeter and non-rail gruiformes in North American zoos" for the remaining families...
 
Great Argus said:
Those groups have all been moved out of Gruiformes in the new taxonomy sequence. Buttonquails are placed under Charadriidae, and the seriemas, bustards, and sunbittern/kagu now each have their own order.
Click to expand...

He knows this. This is nothing but yet another example of @Kakapo insisting that only his taxonomic views are correct (despite the little to no actual evidence to support them) while also demeaning anyone who thinks otherwise. He'll then use his 'taxonomic freedom' excuse to insist that he didn't do what he very clearly did and insist that it is, in fact, everyone else who disagrees with him who are attacking him.

It is a pattern that has repeated over and over again on this forum to the point to where the mods have had to create an entirely new thread solely for his "debates" to be moved to.

~Thylo
 
Kakapo said:
Well, they are gruiformes, but if birdsandbats don't want to considere them as gruiformes in his thread, he's in his right... I think it's odd, but... let's give him taxonomic freedom.

Maybe we need a third thread called "non-crane, non-trumpeter and non-rail gruiformes in North American zoos" for the remaining families...
Click to expand...

Since whole genomes have been sequenced they have all moved out of Gruiformes, I know you say nobody accepts these splits, but all recent publications (basically the last few years) accept the new situation...
 
ThylacineAlive said:
He knows this. This is nothing but yet another example of @Kakapo insisting that only his taxonomic views are correct (despite the little to no actual evidence to support them) while also demeaning anyone who thinks otherwise. He'll then use his 'taxonomic freedom' excuse to insist that he didn't do what he very clearly did and insist that it is, in fact, everyone else who disagrees with him who are attacking him.

It is a pattern that has repeated over and over again on this forum to the point to where the mods have had to create an entirely new thread solely for his "debates" to be moved to.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

Youre absolutely wrong in every point, as usual when you talk about me personally, and you always reflect a certain hate about me, I don't know why.
-I didn't knew this. Very vaguely I remember some mention elsewhere of the new orders for these gruiforms, but I didn't knew this for sure. And the odd placing of buttonquails in Charadriidae is completely new for me. Not surprising anyway.
-I never insisted in that only my taxonomic views are correct, if you read any of my posts related to taxonomy, I almost always stated ABSOLUTELY THE CONTRARY, and in this thread I did the same.
-Also, I may tell that the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD's point of view is more correct or less absurd. From this, to tell that MY point of view is the ONLY correct are a zillion of kilometres of difference.
-Not sure of the meaning of the word "demeaning", but if it means something similar to deprecate or deny (as I deduce by context), this is another obvious lie.
-I don't use any excuse for nothing. I use the taxonomic freedom just precisely for the contrary purposes of those that you attach to me (thus, for allowing different points of view to the most logic or universal ones).
-Is you the only that are (in this same message) insisting in that I do things that I didn't did. I do not this kind of absurd things.
-It's a completely different thing the fact of disagreeing with me or with the world (as did the people that explained the new positions of gruiformes) than the fact of attacking me (that is what YOU do flagrantly and very obviously in your message (and is not your first against me), trying to deprecate and lying every point about me instead exposing the own point of view.
-The mods never HAD to create any thread. Some mod WANTED to create an absolutely unnecesary thread for spliting without apparent reason my responses to people that were against my taxonomic opinions in threads where taxonomy closely related to the thread subject popped up. Then, as you did just now, some people just concentrated in just attacking me instead talking about something related to the thread. Just because these people, like you, can't accept any different opinion than their own, just as you keep accusing me to do (while clearly is you who do, and I not).

So, I ask you please stop now your continuous attack over me.
 
Kakapo said:
I never insisted in that only my taxonomic views are correct, if you read any of my posts related to taxonomy, I almost always stated ABSOLUTELY THE CONTRARY, and in this thread I did the same.
Click to expand...

Let's see what a cursory search throws up with regards to this point:

When someone referred to Northern White Rhinoceros as a species, you felt the need to correct them, hence stating they were wrong:

Kakapo said:
The title of the thread is "Has anyone seen extinct species?"
Click to expand...

Stating that those who disagree with you are mad and have no methodology behind their claims:

Kakapo said:
As I told before, there is not a method. Madness is just the modern taxonomy.
Click to expand...

Stating that anything that does not fit your personal taxonomy is mere opinion and not based on facts:

Kakapo said:
Of course these news didn't surprised me, as change every taxa of every animal on plant on Earth 183757890236459 times every year, forwards and backwards and in all combination imaginable, it's just what the taxonomist do now... So I took it as another more of the trillion of taxonomic OPINIONS (=taxonomic changes) that don't deserve more attention to me than any other personal and debatable opinion.
Click to expand...

When asked where your taxonomy derives from, you stated the following - which strongly implies you believe the people you disagree with lack either:

Kakapo said:
From LOGIC and KNOWLEGDE.
Click to expand...

Explicitly stating that anyone who disagrees with you about cetacean taxonomy is mentally ill:

Kakapo said:
that is how this Order is now considered by the craziest people on Earth.
Click to expand...

Explicitly stating that your taxonomy is "exhaustive, accurate and true" whilst those who reject it are neither knowledgeable nor scientific.

Kakapo said:
The problem is that these exhaustive, accurated and true scientific theories have been rejected in recent times by those that think that DNA is the only way to classify things, and for that one don't need to be a knowlegdeable scientific
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly willing to accept you might not intend to give the impression you believe all of the above, given the language barrier, but hopefully this will help you understand why this impression has been given :)
 
@Kakapo I do not hate you nor am I out to hate on you. In fact, I see you as a very intelligent member of the community, especially when it comes to cetaceans, fishes, and invertebrates. I do, however, take issue with the way you handle taxonomic discussions. As @TeaLovingDave points out above, there are many examples of you doing exactly what I'm talking about, with his examples being from only two threads, and in that Extinct species thread you even have a now-deleted (I think) post where someone expresses that white rhinos have been split and your exact response to them is "WRONG." You even responded in the exact way I predicted you would in my initial post. Maybe you are not doing this intentionally, but both your repetitiveness and defensiveness suggest otherwise.

Yes you did mention 'taxonomic freedom' in this particular instance, but just look at your post:

Kakapo said:
Well, they are gruiformes, but if birdsandbats don't want to considere them as gruiformes in his thread, he's in his right... I think it's odd, but... let's give him taxonomic freedom.

Maybe we need a third thread called "non-crane, non-trumpeter and non-rail gruiformes in North American zoos" for the remaining families...
Click to expand...

Your first statement is to insist that they are, in fact, Gruiformes and that's just how it is. Yeah you then say BnB can consider them non-Gruiformes if he wants for his thread, but you find that bizarre. You then end it by stating that we are in need of a thread that still considers them Gruiformes. This is not friendly debate or a sharing of opinions, it's condescending. You give zero evidence for your claims (as TLD notes your go-to source is your own "LOGIC and KNOWLEDGE") and you are not open to further discussion. You state your views as fact, when asked for evidence you just say "Well, they are" or something similar, and when disagreed with you get very angry and accuse others of attacking you or having personal agendas against you.

You say you only bring up taxonomy when the thread is already closely related to taxonomy but that is not at all true. This thread has nothing to do with taxonomy, that Extinct species thread had nothing to do with taxonomy, that possums in captivity thread had nothing to do with taxonomy. You are the one who continuously instigates taxonomic arguments on these threads, and that is precisely why the mods did have to split them off onto their own thread.

I admit I do sometimes get a bit too heated (perhaps as I am now) when others state their opinions as factual while refusing to actually give reasoning for why I should accept it as such, but I have no issue with agreeing to disagree when there is friendly discussion/debate. I disagree on taxonomy with many people, and routinely debate/discuss ungulate and felid splits/lumps with a couple of friends of mine both on and off the forum. As noted above, however, there is a clear difference between that and what you have been doing. I am willing to believe that you are not doing anything maliciously, but I hope the above from myself and TLD shows you exactly what we and most (if not all) others here take issue with.

Apologies for derailing the thread.

~Thylo
 
Just something I've been thinking about recently: what do people think of the proposed Blue-winged Warbler and Golden-winged Warbler lump?
 
birdsandbats said:
Just something I've been thinking about recently: what do people think of the proposed Blue-winged Warbler and Golden-winged Warbler lump?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting one. The two species look nothing like each other, but their consistent hybridization and back crosses certainly seem to indicate they may be at least extremely close relatives.
 
Great Argus said:
It's an interesting one. The two species look nothing like each other, but their consistent hybridization and back crosses certainly seem to indicate they may be at least extremely close relatives.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they certainly act like the same species. I just don't want to lose a bird from my life list.
 
Im going to propose an opinion of mine, that Gippsland water dragons should be split from the Australian water dragon.

Evidence for: Gippsland water dragons have smaller spinose scales and wildly different colouration. They do not interbreed in the wild.

Evidence against: apart from their spinose scales their morphology is identical. They do interbreed in captivity.

Neutral source.
Australian Water Dragon
 
A revision of the didelphid marsupial genus Marmosa. Part 2, Species of the rapposa group (subgenus Micoureus).
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 439
Voss, Robert S.; Giarla, Thomas C.; Díaz-Nieto, Juan F.; Jansa, Sharon A.
A revision of the didelphid marsupial genus Marmosa. Part 2, Species of the rapposa group (subgenus Micoureus). (Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 439)

Abstract:
In this report, the second of a revisionary series on mouse opossums (Marmosa), we analyze cytochrome b sequence data from 166 specimens of the subgenus Micoureus and delimit putative species using the multirate Poisson Tree Processes (mPTP) method. That analysis identifies 21 putative species, many of which can be matched with available names, including alstoni, constantiae, demerarae, limae, germana, meridae, paraguayana, parda, perplexa, phaea, rapposa, and rutteri. However, some of these nominal taxa are not morphologically diagnosable, and in the absence of other corroborating evidence, we do not recommend that they all be recognized as valid. Phylogenetic analyses of a multigene dataset suggest that putative species of Micoureus belong to several well-supported clades, one of which (the “Rapposa Group”) is revised in this report. As defined herein, the Rapposa Group includes at least three valid species: M. rapposa Thomas, 1899 (including budini Thomas, 1920); M. parda Tate, 1931; and M. rutteri Thomas, 1924. Herein we document their ecogeographic distributions and diagnostic traits, comment on their taxonomic histories, and list the specimens we examined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top