Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 11:09 am

http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

It looks like the overall trend is towards loss of subspecies status.

Notread
Posts: 261
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 6:29 am

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Notread » May 19th, 2011, 11:52 am

spinifer wrote:It looks like the overall trend is towards loss of subspecies status.
Haha, for now.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 19th, 2011, 12:02 pm

It looks like the overall trend is towards loss of subspecies status.


Yeah it is unfortunately..

Fundad

They'll stop when they get to humans. Can you imagine if they said Native Americans were not the same species as Native Europeans for example?. Holly smokes would there be a back lash, and rightfully so..

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 12:10 pm

There has been too much cross pollination in Homo sapiens even across oceans before Columbus for anyone to claim reproductive isolation, so I don't think they would try.

Hubbs is going to have a field day.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 12:14 pm

Taricha torosa was also split.

New Contia is recognized, but the Aneides flavipunctatus split was not.

I guess they are probably reviewed by different people, but it seems odd that they were more conservative with waiting on that species complex, which appears to me to have better support for a split, than they were with getula.

User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 531
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Jeff » May 19th, 2011, 12:17 pm

They'll stop when they get to humans. Can you imagine if they said Native Americans were not the same species as Native Europeans for example?. Holly smokes would there be a back lash, and rightfully so..
Not so fast...

Linnaeus divided humans into at least four subspecies. Hall and Kelson (1959. The mammals of North America): see page 234

Paul White
Posts: 2288
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:52 pm
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Paul White » May 19th, 2011, 12:22 pm

yeah but that hasn't been recognized in 100 years or more.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 19th, 2011, 12:23 pm

OMG They split up Getula...

I no longer have any idea what the definition of a species is.

I will never recognize that change.. That paper had a ton of holes and speculation.


Unbelievable..
Fundad

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 12:29 pm

Fundad wrote:OMG They split up Getula...
From what the notes say, the split is not complete. Sounds like some additional evidence and species are soon to be published, but for the meantime they are lumped.
Reviews of the status of various species and recognition of additional taxa are forthcoming (F. Burbrink et al. pers comm).
Not sure why the would jump to the change before reviewing the additional data.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 19th, 2011, 12:32 pm

From what the notes say, the split is not complete. Sounds like some additional evidence and species are soon to be published, but for the meantime they are lumped.

What does that mean "they are lumped"?

Fundad

User avatar
Cole Grover
Posts: 745
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Location: Montana

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Cole Grover » May 19th, 2011, 12:38 pm

spinifer wrote:Not sure why the would jump to the change before reviewing the additional data.
Nate,

Look at who's doing the reviews... Burbrink probably isn't going to dismiss his own work as incomplete... especially without published evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, I found the comments about many of the Lampropeltini to be oddly speculative. I mean, making broad taxonomic statements based on a few mitochondrial loci is no small thing.

-Cole

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 12:39 pm

Fundad wrote:
From what the notes say, the split is not complete. Sounds like some additional evidence and species are soon to be published, but for the meantime they are lumped.

What does that mean "they are lumped"?

Fundad
Lumping often happens after they eat a particularly large meal.

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm

Fundad wrote:
From what the notes say, the split is not complete. Sounds like some additional evidence and species are soon to be published, but for the meantime they are lumped.

What does that mean "they are lumped"?

Fundad
Should I have said "sunk"? For example Florida Kingsnake is gone, I assume sunk into, or lumped together with Eastern Kingsnake.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 12:58 pm

They put nigrita with Cal Kings but morphologically, nigrita are much closer to desert kings.

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Don Becker » May 19th, 2011, 1:17 pm

When exactly were Scarlett Kings elevated?

User avatar
Don
Posts: 374
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:36 am
Location: Sunny Myrtle Beach

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Don » May 19th, 2011, 1:38 pm

Oh, swell! When NAFHA adopts the latest swill, as they did when my SC chicken snakes became Texas ratsnakes in the database (and a highschool kid called me on it), I'm gonna quietly withdraw to my written journal. This learning-new-BS-names for no reason is getting old. Can't we bestow advanced degrees to students who DON'T muck things up?

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 1:56 pm

No changes to the DB are imminent.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 2:00 pm

psyon wrote:When exactly were Scarlett Kings elevated?
2009 according to the notes.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 2:08 pm

What bothers me is how many of the splits seem to only point towards mtDNA.

You may be able to argue that there has been some reproductive isolation via mtDNA (though I'm not even sure I completely buy that) but mtDNA is non coding, you can't argue there has been actual evolution via mtDNA. Reproductive isolation does not necessitate divergent evolution, and divergent evolution does not require reproductive isolation (ring species).

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Don Becker » May 19th, 2011, 5:12 pm

spinifer wrote:No changes to the DB are imminent.
Well, we did vote to use the SSAR list, so if they have changed, we should technically bring it in line... not that I like that idea.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 19th, 2011, 5:15 pm

Well, we did vote to use the SSAR list, so if they have changed, we should technically bring it in line... not that I like that idea.
I suggest a re-vote.. (man will that be a long thread or what)...

I would like to see us atleast have the option of voting for specific changes before they are made.. And bring back the Zonata sub species darn it.. :lol: :evil:

Fundad

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 6:17 pm

psyon wrote:
spinifer wrote:No changes to the DB are imminent.
Well, we did vote to use the SSAR list, so if they have changed, we should technically bring it in line... not that I like that idea.
We voted to accept the 2008 list, not to always follow the most current version.

User avatar
Crimson King
Posts: 337
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:31 pm
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Crimson King » May 19th, 2011, 6:48 pm

What does that mean "they are lumped"?
I think that dates back to the 60's when we used to say "don't like it??....then lump it"

;)
:Mark

User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3430
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by justinm » May 19th, 2011, 7:09 pm

We can put whatever we want in the "list". I'm sticking with Natrix, Eumeces, Bufo, Elaphe, Rana and all the other names I grew up knowing.

User avatar
BChambers
Posts: 213
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:48 am
Location: Boerne, TX

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by BChambers » May 19th, 2011, 7:55 pm

Amen, Funky. I personally discount any taxonomic changes based solely on MtDna results. Seriously, it's high time to get a little perspective on this.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 8:37 pm

I just read the paper that suggested the Taricha torosa split and it seems legit -

A) There are diagnosable morphological differences between the two lineages that hold true not only between coastal and sierra populations but southern sierra and sierra populations.

B) There is a contact zone with interbreeding, but the contact zone is extremely small indicating selection against hybrid genotype

C) Genetic testing beyond mtDNA was done in the contact zone and suggests selection against the hybrid genotype.

That change I think is valid.
It was Stebbins who suggested they were subspecies opposed to distinct species, but according to the paper, Stebbins did not detail why.

Robert Hansen
Posts: 172
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:35 pm

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Robert Hansen » May 19th, 2011, 9:32 pm

You guys are getting yourselves needlessly worked up based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the names list. The point of the Crother list (adopted by ASIH, HL, and SSAR) is to standardize English names…period. It is NOT intended to be any sort of referendum on taxonomic changes, but of course there have to be some decisions by the compilers in order to generate English names. Remember also that proposed taxonomic changes (splits, lumps, etc.) are hypotheses, and typically these are met with varying levels of acceptance by other herpetologists. Some are not controversial and enjoy immediate acceptance, while others hang in limbo for a time, either to be corroborated or refuted by additional evidence or analysis. Thus, authors who submit manuscripts to the journals published by these societies are not constrained to follow any particular taxonomic arrangement, but must use the standard English name per the list.

I agree that there is plenty to get exercised about when debating the merits of recent taxonomic changes, but still bear in mind that these are proposals and not definitive judgments.

Cheers,

Bob

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 19th, 2011, 9:57 pm

Robert Hansen wrote:You guys are getting yourselves needlessly worked up based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the names list. The point of the Crother list (adopted by ASIH, HL, and SSAR) is to standardize English names…period.
If that's the point then it appears they are missing the point themselves, because almost all of their notes have to do with genetic sampling or waiting for further genetic sampling, and not with what is being used.

The common king split did not add any new English names to proposed species or subspecies, but rather, it removed some that are in common use and must continue to be in common use for those who do not accept the change (IE Florida Kingsnake).

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by spinifer » May 19th, 2011, 10:35 pm

Robert Hansen wrote:You guys are getting yourselves needlessly worked up based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the names list. The point of the Crother list (adopted by ASIH, HL, and SSAR) is to standardize English names…period. It is NOT intended to be any sort of referendum on taxonomic changes, but of course there have to be some decisions by the compilers in order to generate English names. Remember also that proposed taxonomic changes (splits, lumps, etc.) are hypotheses, and typically these are met with varying levels of acceptance by other herpetologists. Some are not controversial and enjoy immediate acceptance, while others hang in limbo for a time, either to be corroborated or refuted by additional evidence or analysis. Thus, authors who submit manuscripts to the journals published by these societies are not constrained to follow any particular taxonomic arrangement, but must use the standard English name per the list.

I agree that there is plenty to get exercised about when debating the merits of recent taxonomic changes, but still bear in mind that these are proposals and not definitive judgments.

Cheers,

Bob
Well that is half of it, but it is also to provide the most currently accepted taxonomic status in the eyes of SSAR, ASIH, and the Herpetologists League.

Robert Hansen
Posts: 172
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:35 pm

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Robert Hansen » May 20th, 2011, 1:54 am

Well that is half of it, but it is also to provide the most currently accepted taxonomic status in the eyes of SSAR, ASIH, and the Herpetologists League.
Here is an excerpt from author instructions for Herpetological Review (published by SSAR, and for which I serve as Editor): "The role of the “Standard Names” lists...is to standardize English names and comment on the current scientific names. Scientific names are hypotheses (or at least represent them) and as such their usage should not be dictated by a list, society, or journal."

That language was drafted by Brian Crother (editor of the names lists). Bottom line is that the only thing that is "enforced" is English name usage in our publications. Although the use of any particular scientific name might seem influential (and I understand that), it does not carry any special weight and should not be regarded as some sort of pronouncement or judgment. I assure you that there is plenty of disagreement among herpetologists on some of the taxonomic arrangements followed in the names list—such is the nature of systematics.

BH

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 20th, 2011, 4:58 am

With respect to some splitting -

PHILLIP Q. S PINKS and H. BRADLEY SHAFFER

Conflicting Mitochondrial and Nuclear Phylogenies for the Widely Disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) Species Complex, and What They Tell Us about Biogeography and Hybridization

Syst. Biol. 58(1):1–20, 2009
Over the last 3 decades, the majority of vertebrate
phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses have been
based almost exclusively on mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA).

...

a growing body of evidence
suggests that inferences based on any individual gene,
and mtDNA in particular, should be tempered with cau-
tion (Funk and Omland 2003; Chan and Levin 2005).
Incongruence between mtDNA- and nuDNA-based
phylogenetic reconstructions is commonly observed
(Ferris et al. 1983; Shaw 2002; Leach ́ and McGuire
e
2006; Robertson et al. 2006; Peters et al. 2007; Spinks
and Shaffer 2007; Good et al. 2008)

...

Thus, mtDNA alone is often inadequate for phy-
logeographic/phylogenetic analyses, especially in the
face of complex evolutionary scenarios including in-
trogression, hybridization, and/or selection (Chan and
Levin 2005).
http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/1365.pdf

Given how readily all getula complex hybridize under captive conditions (no tricks are necessary), I think as a species introgression and hybridization must be looked at as mechanisms of gene flow in the historic evolution of the complex.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 20th, 2011, 10:00 am

We can put whatever we want in the "list". I'm sticking with Natrix, Eumeces, Bufo, Elaphe, Rana and all the other names I grew up knowing.

ME TOO!! "jumping up and down and stooping my feet in protest of change"" :lol: :lol: :evil: :lol:

Fundad

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 20th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Fundad wrote:
We can put whatever we want in the "list". I'm sticking with Natrix, Eumeces, Bufo, Elaphe, Rana and all the other names I grew up knowing.

ME TOO!! "jumping up and down and stooping my feet in protest of change"" :lol: :lol: :evil: :lol:

Fundad
Except for Elgaria - much easier to remember and type than Gerrhonotus - so that change is good ;)

User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 531
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Jeff » May 20th, 2011, 1:51 pm

The purpose of the "notes" part of the list is to indicate which authority/published paper/option we are following in deciding which taxa exist to attach a Standard English Name to. As Bob Hansen stated, we are assigning English Names, not attempting to compile a checklist of recognized taxa. However, such a list must exist before we provide English Names. Brian Crother does a fantastic, albeit unenviable, job of keeping opinionated experts and "experts" on track. He also allows individual subcommittees to operate with some degree of independence. For example, the Anura group follows Frost's "Amphibian Tree of Life", the Caudata subcommittee does not.

We debate which published decisions to follow, and strictly avoid making taxonomic decisions ourselves. This brings us back to the "notes", meant to document our rationale in recognizing taxa (or not).

We are messengers, and should not be shot.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5722
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Fundad » May 20th, 2011, 2:03 pm

We are messengers, and should not be shot.

:lol: :lol: We get a little riled up around here, but mean no harm to anyone 99.999999999999999% of the time.. :lol:

Part of this comes from NAFHA's decision to follow SSAR's in naming.. When the name changes happen it changes the naming we know and "might" believe in. Some of us are also entering data and using NAFHA as a "life list" of sorts..And frankly we dont want those name changes on our lists.. :evil: :lol: None of our ranting shouldbe taken seriously..

Now back to jumping up and down and stooping my feet.. :lol: :lol:

There are no easy answers.. :lol: :lol:

Fundad

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 20th, 2011, 10:41 pm

The getula split is the only one in the paper I have a major problem with.
I think it needs more nuDNA sampling. I bet nuDNA sampling trees would be quite different than the mtDNA trees used for the split.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 21st, 2011, 2:23 am

Ten points if you can name the author and date:
There is no question in Natural History on which more diversified opinions are entertained than that of Classification

J-Miz
Posts: 372
Joined: October 28th, 2010, 3:26 pm

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by J-Miz » May 21st, 2011, 5:00 am

justinm wrote:We can put whatever we want in the "list". I'm sticking with Natrix, Eumeces, Bufo, Elaphe, Rana and all the other names I grew up knowing.
Agreed. I like to keep things simple. I can't follow all these changes, especially since the original genera were so easy to remember!

I'm not a big fan of taxonomy. I've seen species (birds mostly) split up that I completely disagree with. Growing up, it was fun learning of all the "new" species, but now it's just plain annoying. Sometimes I think these same taxonomists would split Homo sapiens into about ten species if people wouldn't negatively react (H. caucasia, H. africanus, H. orientalis, H. hispanicus, etc ).

User avatar
The Real Snake Man
Posts: 405
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by The Real Snake Man » May 21st, 2011, 7:56 am

And just to note - there's no Gyalopion; I guess they missed it.

Robert Hansen
Posts: 172
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:35 pm

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Robert Hansen » May 21st, 2011, 9:16 am

The Real Snake Man wrote:And just to note - there's no Gyalopion; I guess they missed it.
Good catch. Should be fixed now.

heavenscloud
Posts: 254
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:31 pm
Location: PA

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by heavenscloud » May 21st, 2011, 10:06 am

Robert Hansen wrote:Here is an excerpt from author instructions for Herpetological Review (published by SSAR, and for which I serve as Editor): "The role of the “Standard Names” lists...is to standardize English names and comment on the current scientific names. Scientific names are hypotheses (or at least represent them) and as such their usage should not be dictated by a list, society, or journal."

So what? Why should any data-oriented person care about standardized English names?

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 21st, 2011, 11:13 am

They also left out Testudo scabra (Linnaeus 1758) ;)

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Don Becker » May 21st, 2011, 12:03 pm

heavenscloud wrote:So what? Why should any data-oriented person care about standardized English names?
Because they wouldn't mind data from people who are hobbyists and only remember the english names?

User avatar
BChambers
Posts: 213
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:48 am
Location: Boerne, TX

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by BChambers » May 21st, 2011, 1:47 pm

psyon wrote:
heavenscloud wrote:So what? Why should any data-oriented person care about standardized English names?
Because they wouldn't mind data from people who are hobbyists and only remember the english names?
Should we trust data from someone who is too lazy to look up a scientific name? ;)

Paul White
Posts: 2288
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:52 pm
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Paul White » May 21st, 2011, 5:16 pm

how does a novice know *which* latin name to look up? I still see a mixture of Scotophis, Panthertophis and Elaphe when looking at resources regarding american rat snakes (not to mention the species mess).

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Don Becker » May 21st, 2011, 6:09 pm

BChambers wrote:Should we trust data from someone who is too lazy to look up a scientific name? ;)
No, but we should trust it from someone who submits a picture, even if the ID is wrong, and we can later correct the ID for them, and give them a proper scientific name.

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2433
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by chris_mcmartin » May 21st, 2011, 7:12 pm

FunkyRes wrote:Ten points if you can name the author and date:
There is no question in Natural History on which more diversified opinions are entertained than that of Classification

Noah, 2,000 BC or so. :P

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by Daryl Eby » May 21st, 2011, 7:35 pm

chris_mcmartin wrote:
FunkyRes wrote:Ten points if you can name the author and date:
There is no question in Natural History on which more diversified opinions are entertained than that of Classification

Noah, 2,000 BC or so. :P
I'm betting he was a lumper. "OK God, we either drop the subspecies or build an ark armada."

User avatar
BChambers
Posts: 213
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:48 am
Location: Boerne, TX

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by BChambers » May 21st, 2011, 8:45 pm

Noah, 2,000 BC or so. :P
I read once that someone had done a rough calculation on the actual size ship needed to adequately house a pair of every species on earth-came out to about the size of Long Island :lol:

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Standard English and Scientific Names — Now Online

Post by FunkyRes » May 22nd, 2011, 5:16 am

BChambers wrote:
Noah, 2,000 BC or so. :P
I read once that someone had done a rough calculation on the actual size ship needed to adequately house a pair of every species on earth-came out to about the size of Long Island :lol:
Such calculations are absurd.
The species concept we have is modern and is different from the Hebrew "kind" that was used in Genesis, where kind was often clearly used for a broad group of animals (such as the food laws) and not for what we would call a species (reproductively isolated population of organisms).

There's no reason why speciation into additional diversity would magically halt necessitating two of every species we have today.

I'm not saying there is evidence to support that having happened, just pointing out the math used by some skeptics, such as calculating the size of the ark needed as monstrous, is based on fuzzy highly flawed logic and a lack of basic linguistic understanding.

I briefly went to a Christian school, and the science curriculum had us calculate the cubic feet of the ark in a unit conversion exercise.
I use significant digits and they said my answer was wrong. I tried explaining the importance of significant digits and that they answered "Bible says X number of cubits, and bible is precise, infinite significant digits".

Dad took me out after that. Anyway, various math used by skeptics to say the ark would have had to be colossal is based on logic that is just as flawed, making assumptions that are either wrong (such as meaning of kind of animal) or have no evidence.

Just sayin'

EDIT:

The logical way to look at it - the text clearly specifies it was a supernatural event.
Natural laws do not apply for supernatural events.
Thus asking skeptical questions like where all the water went, how all the animals fit, what all the animals ate, etc. are fundamentally flawed because they rely on natural laws and ignore the super natural description of the event.

If you reject the supernatural then you can reject the Genesis account based solely on its description of being supernatural.

Post Reply