The trials of a postdoc

I'm surprised your book is getting rejections: I know I'd buy it. It does have pictures, right?

Good luck with the grant applications: I've been through that so I know your pain.

On Carl von Linné, the ESEB (European Society for Evolutionary Biology) is having its meeting in Uppsala next summer. Looks like a good excuse to get you over here and torture you with Swedish beer.

Bob

Someone will publish your book eventually, and when they do it will be a big success and the people who rejected it will kill themselves.

Jason

Just for that, Jason, I'm going to buy you a beer...

And Bob - you buy me a ticket, and I'll buy you the Swedish beer (and some for me, of course).

Trust me, you don't want that Swedish beer. Even if somebody offers to buy you one, resist the temptation.

"And if a publisher can't see that historians, philosophers and biologists will buy it, then I'm doomed. Time for another beer..."

Time for another publisher, more like it.

I'm trying, I'm trying...

Hang in there. My own first book has sold modestly well (does that make sense?) and even so, the jury is still out on whether I can sell the next. The publishing industry is excruciatingly slow--and they never stop asking you to prove yourself, no matter how much you've published before.

But it's still worth it. Keep trying. There's an editor out there who won't react the way the others did. You may consider also asking a professional editor to punch it up for you--but only do this if an agent or an actual publisher likes your idea and recommends it.

:)

BTW, as far as I'm concerned, your contributions to Talk Origins alone merit their own book.

Since you have brought up "species" again, (I wanted to comment about your "26 species concepts" but didn't see it until yesterday) I wish to ask some questions.
I am not a scientist, I ask naive questions. The term "species" continually bothers me. It seems to be poorly defined - is that what your "26" column was saying? It seems clear that if a stable population produces offspring populations that move apart and gradually become sufficiently different so that they can no longer interbreed, then the two new populations are separate species. Is it required that the original, connecting population die out, in order that the new groups be considered separate species?
The reason that I ask this is the following. Consider ring species: gulls and salamanders. In both cases, at the end of the ring, two populations coexist that have evolved from an original population. Those two new populations are considered separate species even though there still exists a chain all the way around But, an alternate situation exists with dogs. The range of physical differences in dogs is much larger than it is on the ends of the rings. It seems clear to me that the biggest dogs and the smallest dogs can not interbreed, yet they are all considered to be the same species. I guess that all I'm saying is that the concept is not well-defined (mathematical term), that it is no more precise than the biblical "kinds". And I guess that that is what your "26" post was saying.

Most of the species concepts are well defined - the problem is that they are not mutually compatible, or exhaustive. For my money, a species is something that is a separate lineage maintained distinct from other lineages by one or more of a number of main mechanisms that generate unique sets of traits in each lineage (differences in apomorphies, which is why I cal species synapomorphic lineages). Diagnosis and identification are purely heuristic matters, that may or may not conform to these mechanisms. The obvious mechanisms are reproductive compatibility within, and lowered reproductive compatibility between, lineages, and ecological adaptation. These serve to maintain the genomes of a lineage around a "wild type" focus.

It is expected that with evolution there will be boundary cases forming sorites heaps. This is what evolution is about - basically until they form distinct lineages, there is a period in which we can neither say they are different species, nor that they are not. Being a species is a post hoc property.

John: feel free to assemble my t.o contributions into a book. I started posting in November 1992...

John:
You said: "there is a period in which we can neither say they are different species, nor that they are not. Being a species is a post hoc property."
That's helpful. BUT, that still doesn't explain why all dogs are considered to be the same species but gulls and salamanders at the ends of their rings are considered to be different species. Seems inconsistent.

What's the betting creationists will use the tercentenary of Linnaeus' birth to tell us Carolus was a creationist too?

Typically the nomenclatural standing of a species depends on whether we encounter the end points or the midpoint of the ring species first. But in fact few of the putative ring species have been verified (the Herring Gull complex turns out to be a number of distinct species, for instance). The Ensantina salamanders (spelling?) are a real case of a ring species.

As to the Linnaeus celebrations - let them tell us that. Then we can say that he in fact changed his mind in a limited fashion after learning more...

The book must not have enough puns.

Keep trying ... I want that signed copy you promised.

Not enough puns? The title is "The origins of species concepts". How much more do you want?

The promise of a sequel called "The Dissent of Man".

Or a book on castrati called "The Descant of Man".

Bob

How about a book on some German anthropologist - The Dozent of Man?

A book on volunteer guides at the anthropology museum -- the Docents of Man.

(As for the real book: your case studies are botanical, IIRC? Spruce it up with some of those historical botanical illustrations, and try for a coffee-table format.)

To follow up my last post, the second edition of the castrati book would have to be called:

The Tenor of Man: The Uncut Edition

Bob

To get back to species. I think what I am looking for is something like this (about the newly found mouse):
"Mus cypriacus was identified as a distinct species based on molecular studies"
Why isn't that (or is it) becoming the standard method for identifying (distinguishing) species?

Regarding the status of dogs as a species:

As far as I know, the size issue is the *only* obstacle to interbreeding among the various breeds of dog. In fact, it's even more specific than that -- conception is possible throughout the range, the problem is primarily with carrying and birthing a puppy of vastly different size. Physically mating might be a secondary problem at the extremes, but I've heard stories....

The differences in body and head shape just "come out with the wash". If you cross, say, a bulldog and a Shetland Terrier, the puppies will probably look pretty funny, but other things being equal, they'll be normally healthy. More to the point, they'll still be fully interfertile with other breeds.

Given that even humans can have problems birthing excessively large or small infants (compared to the mother), it seems reasonable to "give a pass" on the issue for dogs.

Coincidentally, a paper out this week has found that there is a single gene difference between small and large dogs; a gene called Igf-1 when silenced will cause small dogs and when active (and possibly in multiple copies - I can't access the research paper right now) will cause large dogs to grow.

My question is about the inconsistency in labeling species. Accepting that all dogs are one species,why are the salamanders at the ends of the ring considered to be separate species?
I've had the dog situation described as: put a collection of dogs - from small through medium to large - on an island. After a period of time there will be a population of medium sized dogs. So, wouldn't that also be true with the salamanders? If so, they should be the same species.
Another way of looking at it is that species is (or ought to be) a transitive relationship: A ss B, B ss C therefore A ss C.
David Harmon (above) says that the "only" problem for dogs is size. Maybe the problem for salamanders is not physical but physiological. That leads to what I quoted above - the distinction should be based on "molecular studies". Wouldn't that clear up all the confusion?

It would be nice to think so, and many taxonomists do think so. But there is a conceptual problem that applies as much to molecular data as to physiological or morphological data. How much difference is enough? Darwin noted that there was no set amount of difference that could mark out a species, and the same is true if you use genomic data - any mark or line will be arbitrary if you try to apply it holus bolus to all species. What counts is not the degree of difference, but the difference the degree causes. For instance, back in the 70s chromosomal differences were touted as a measure of speciation, but it turns out that some very slight differences are enough to break the reproductive viability of hybrids, and that some species which have major chromosomal differences in structure and count can happily interbreed.

Mostly what prevents interbreeding are timing regulation genes; if a species has a developmental series that is interrupted by a lack of paired genes, as in lions and tigers, the progeny can be very large or very small, and fail to thrive (for instance, due to a lack of food resources in that environment). This can be, in objective molecular terms, a minor genetic difference. But horses, for example, can cross breed with major differences in chromosome number, as can other mammalian species such as the Israeli naked mole rat.

So molecular studies add lots of data, but don't resolve the basic question - how much difference is enough? And on evolutionary grounds we must expect that each case will ave its own answer to that, and there may be no generalisations we can draw from these case studies.

The paper in question will have mentioned in its materials and methods section what amount is regarded as sufficient in this case, but by and large whole genomes aren't used for this purpose, only a few marker genes, and they, too, are problematic. One gene that is used as a "barcode" is the cytochromome C gene, but it's challenged whether that is unique to each species, or even breaks down within species or is shared between them.

Thanks John.
Just wanted to let you know that I've come back and read your explanation. I appreciate it.
Naive statement: I think it must be there though. As gene decoding techniques and understanding progresses perhaps The Key will be found.

A late comment to this thread, I realize, but as I happen to be working in in the city where Linneaus held his professorship, I humbly suggest I can dispel the notion of the poor quality of Swedish beer. This is a misunderstanding based on an incomplete sample, just like the poor international reputation of American beer ("making love in a canoe" etc.) is based on so-called beers like Budweiser, Miller's and Coors rather than good brews such Sierra Nevada, Harpoon or Smuttynose.

So, let's put this hypothesis through empirical testing, and find at least a provisional Truth! I volunteer to help those of you who might visit here some proof that there are indeed some very fine brews to be had here in Linneaus' homeland!