Such expressions as that famous one of Linnæus, and which we often meet with in a more or less concealed form, that the characters do not make the genus, but that the genus gives the characters, seem to imply that something more is included in our classification, than mere resemblance. I believe that something more is included; and that propinquity of descent,—the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings,—is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classifications (Darwin, 1859, p. 413f).

Monday, 9 January 2012

Publications for 2011

Below is our list of publications for 2011. For those with no access to the links, will be happy to provide pdf copies on request.
    Cecca, F., Morrone, J.J. and Ebach, M.C. (2011). Biogeographical convergence and time-slicing in cladistic biogeography: Concepts and methods. In P. Upchurch; A. McGowan & C. Slater (eds.), Palaeogeography and Palaeobiogeography: Biodiversity in Space and Time. Taylor & Francis (CRC Press), Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 1-12. 
    Ebach, M.C. (2011). Taxonomy and the DNA Barcoding Enterprise. Zootaxa, 2742: 67–68. 
    Ebach, M.C. (2011). Biogeógrafos del mundo... ¡uníos!: un camino hacia la unificación. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 48: 5-10. 
    Ebach, M.C., de Carvalho M.R. and Nihei, S.S. (2011). Saving Our Science from Ourselves: The Plight of Biological Classification. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 55: 149–153. 
    Ebach, M.C., de Carvalho, M.R. and Williams, D.M. (2011). Opening Pandora’s Molecular Box. Zootaxa, 2946: 60—64. 
    Ebach, M.C. and Williams, D.M. (2011). A Devil's Glossary for Biological Systematics. History and Philosophy of the Life Science,s 33: 251—258. 
    Ebach, M.C., Valdecasas, A.G. and Wheeler, Q.D. (2011). Impediments to Taxonomy and Users of Taxonomy: Accessibility and Impact Evaluation. Cladistics, 27: 550–557. Levkov, Z. and 
    Williams, D.M. (2011). Fifteen new diatom (Bacillariophyta) species from Lake Ohrid, Macedonia. Phytotaxa, 30: 1—41. 
    Mooi, R.D., Williams, D.M., and Gill, A.C. (2011). Numerical cladistics, an unintentional refuge for phenetics – a reply to Wiley et al. Zootaxa, 2946: 17—28. 
    Williams, D.M. (2011). Synedra, Ulnaria: definitions and descriptions – a partial resolution. Diatom Research, 
    Williams, D.M. and Gill, A.C. (2011). ‘Adventures in the fish trade’ by Colin Patterson, edited and with an introduction by David M. Williams & Anthony C. Gill. Zootaxa, 2946: 118—136. 
    Williams, D.M. and Kociolek, J.P. (2011). An overview of diatom classification with some prospects for the future. The Diatom World (Sebach, J & Kociolek, JP, eds), pp. 47—91.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good to have a list of your recent publications, but I miss your posts defending homology and the importance of classifications based on actual synapomorphy. It is a shame that 3ia is so overlooked now days by young students, who seem to prefer incomprehensible/unintelligible methods which rely on black-box algorithms, such as Maximum-Likelihood (ML). Even though I DO USE ML, I am aware ML is so obscure that even its proponents are unable to provide us with sound reasoning on why one should use or not parameters such as pinvar and subsets of the GTR model. Obviously, this must assume such parameters and models are actual information, which in fact they are not, but rather ad-hoc assumptions over real data.
And then, we come to the (un)holy graal of our everyday epistemological murder of logics: mapping morphological characters onto molecular trees. I have no words to express my sadness whenever I see a ML tree showing morphological "synampomorphies" mapped onto its branches. Why, OH GOD WHY do people still insist on calling such things synapomorphies, if they were not even object of a cladistic analysis? Wrong. This is SO WRONG...

Cheers to Malte and David! Keep fighting the good fight!

El Kabong