Re: Swima the swimmer]

View: New views
8 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Re: Swima the swimmer]

by Kirk Fitzhugh :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

The phylogenetic hypotheses are only 'solid' insofar as they explain a limited set of sequence data. Given that the authors must know they are actively avoiding considering all sorts of other relevant data that are in need of being explained in the same context, e.g. the setae as Jim Blake noted, and the use of Bayes Theorem is not meant for the inference of hypotheses, then Torsten's endorsement is ill-founded at best.

But then, let's not quibble with the fine points of doing good science - it's more important to impose blind acceptance of methods by even more blind endorsement.

Kirk

Struck, Torsten wrote:
Indeed, it is a nice discovery and very interesting. Moreover, the
phylogenetic hypotheses are very solid (not at all "dubios at best") and
good in comparison to several other analyses out there.

Nice work Karen,

Torsten.


On 8/22/09 10:30 AM, "Kirk Fitzhugh" kfitzhug@... wrote:

  
Nice discoveries indeed. It's unfortunate that the scientific merits of the
phylogenetic hypotheses are dubious at best. But then, it *is* published in
Science. ;-)

Kirk



-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@... on behalf of Geoff Read
Sent: Sat 8/22/2009 12:54 AM
To: <Annelida list
Subject: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer

FYI

Osborn KJ, Haddock SHD, Pleijel F, Madin LP, Rouse GW 2009. Deep-Sea, Swimming
Worms with Luminescent "Bombs". Science 325: 964 (and online 'supplement').

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=sci;325/5943/964

Swima bombiviridis named (new genus, new species of acrocirrid)

Abstract: "By using remotely operated vehicles, we found seven previously
unknown species of swimming annelid worms below 1800 meters. Specimens were
large and bore a variety of elaborate head appendages. In addition, five
species have pairs of ellipsoidal organs homologous to branchiae that produce
brilliant green bioluminescence when autotomized. Five genes were used to
determine the evolutionary relationships of these worms within
Cirratuliformia. These species form a clade within Acrocirridae and were not
closely related to either of the two known pelagic cirratuliforms. Thus, this
clade represents a third invasion of the pelagic realm from Cirratuliformia.
This finding emphasizes the wealth of discoveries to be made in pelagic and
deep demersal habitats."


Nice discovery. I want to know what they feed on, and how.

Geoff


--

 Geoff Read g.read@...
  http://www.annelida.net/
  http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa
 ***************************


NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
    


------ CONTACT INFORMATION ------
PD Dr. habil. Torsten H. Struck
University of Osnabrück
Department of Biology/Chemistry
Zoology
Barbarastrasse 11
D-49069 Osnabrück
Germany

Phone: +49-541-9693450
Fax: +49-541-9692587
e-mail: struck@...


_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

Re: Swima the swimmer]

by Greg Rouse :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Kirk,
Please consult the Supplement for details on a maximum parsimony analysis that I assume you would not find dubious. A total evidence analysis (i.e., a "limited set of sequence data", plus what must also be called a "limited set" of morphological data) will appear in due course that may alleviate your other concern.
greg

On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:15 AM, J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:

The phylogenetic hypotheses are only 'solid' insofar as they explain a limited set of sequence data. Given that the authors must know they are actively avoiding considering all sorts of other relevant data that are in need of being explained in the same context, e.g. the setae as Jim Blake noted, and the use of Bayes Theorem is not meant for the inference of hypotheses, then Torsten's endorsement is ill-founded at best.

But then, let's not quibble with the fine points of doing good science - it's more important to impose blind acceptance of methods by even more blind endorsement.

Kirk

Struck, Torsten wrote:
Indeed, it is a nice discovery and very interesting. Moreover, the
phylogenetic hypotheses are very solid (not at all "dubios at best") and
good in comparison to several other analyses out there.

Nice work Karen,

Torsten.


On 8/22/09 10:30 AM, "Kirk Fitzhugh" kfitzhug@... wrote:

  
Nice discoveries indeed. It's unfortunate that the scientific merits of the
phylogenetic hypotheses are dubious at best. But then, it *is* published in
Science. ;-)

Kirk



-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@... on behalf of Geoff Read
Sent: Sat 8/22/2009 12:54 AM
To: <Annelida list
Subject: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer

FYI

Osborn KJ, Haddock SHD, Pleijel F, Madin LP, Rouse GW 2009. Deep-Sea, Swimming
Worms with Luminescent "Bombs". Science 325: 964 (and online 'supplement').

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=sci;325/5943/964

Swima bombiviridis named (new genus, new species of acrocirrid)

Abstract: "By using remotely operated vehicles, we found seven previously
unknown species of swimming annelid worms below 1800 meters. Specimens were
large and bore a variety of elaborate head appendages. In addition, five
species have pairs of ellipsoidal organs homologous to branchiae that produce
brilliant green bioluminescence when autotomized. Five genes were used to
determine the evolutionary relationships of these worms within
Cirratuliformia. These species form a clade within Acrocirridae and were not
closely related to either of the two known pelagic cirratuliforms. Thus, this
clade represents a third invasion of the pelagic realm from Cirratuliformia.
This finding emphasizes the wealth of discoveries to be made in pelagic and
deep demersal habitats."


Nice discovery. I want to know what they feed on, and how.

Geoff


--

 Geoff Read g.read@...
  http://www.annelida.net/
  http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa
 ***************************


NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
    


------ CONTACT INFORMATION ------
PD Dr. habil. Torsten H. Struck
University of Osnabrück
Department of Biology/Chemistry
Zoology
Barbarastrasse 11
D-49069 Osnabrück
Germany

Phone: +49-541-9693450
Fax: +49-541-9692587
e-mail: struck@...

<ATT00001.txt>

Greg Rouse
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA, 92093-0202
USA


e-mail: grouse@...
Office Ph:    +1 858 534 7973
Lab Ph:        +1 858 534 9941
Fax:             +1 858 534 7313

Courier delivery address:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
8750 Biological Grade
2170 Hubbs Hall
La Jolla, CA  92037
USA
.............................................................................




_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

Re: Swima the swimmer]

by Kirk Fitzhugh :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Thanks Greg. No matter what method is used, be it 'parsimony,' quasi-Bayesianism, etc., I would never accept the results when I know there are other relevant data that need to be considered. In lieu of even publishing a cladogram using the sequence data, it would have been appropriate to wait on the formal phylogenetics until the relevant data are compiled. There is no such thing as 'total evidence' analyses - an inference either considers one's available relevant evidence for the sake of maximizing rationality of explanation, or they opt for accepting that the results are going to be more irrational.

But since you mention it, I'm also deeply concerned at the fact that systematists routinely publish phylogenetic hypotheses using a variety of different methods, often with contradictory results, regardless of what data are used. Why do it? We can't compare the results because they're inferred from very different assumptions regarding theories, and no one has ever provided any good empirical arguments for the practice. It seems we've lost sight (or maybe never had it) of why those trees are produced in the first place, and are too enamored with the fact that computers can produce branching diagrams whenever we want 'em.

I'm sorry for coming across so critically, but, we have to face the fact that a critical attitude toward phylogenetics is just plain absent. It's a dangerous situation when a field of science becomes so complacent that any sort of method is acceptable and in fact condoned.

Kirk

Greg Rouse wrote:
Kirk,
Please consult the Supplement for details on a maximum parsimony analysis that I assume you would not find dubious. A total evidence analysis (i.e., a "limited set of sequence data", plus what must also be called a "limited set" of morphological data) will appear in due course that may alleviate your other concern.
greg

On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:15 AM, J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:

The phylogenetic hypotheses are only 'solid' insofar as they explain a limited set of sequence data. Given that the authors must know they are actively avoiding considering all sorts of other relevant data that are in need of being explained in the same context, e.g. the setae as Jim Blake noted, and the use of Bayes Theorem is not meant for the inference of hypotheses, then Torsten's endorsement is ill-founded at best.

But then, let's not quibble with the fine points of doing good science - it's more important to impose blind acceptance of methods by even more blind endorsement.

Kirk

Struck, Torsten wrote:
Indeed, it is a nice discovery and very interesting. Moreover, the
phylogenetic hypotheses are very solid (not at all "dubios at best") and
good in comparison to several other analyses out there.

Nice work Karen,

Torsten.


On 8/22/09 10:30 AM, "Kirk Fitzhugh" kfitzhug@... wrote:

  
Nice discoveries indeed. It's unfortunate that the scientific merits of the
phylogenetic hypotheses are dubious at best. But then, it *is* published in
Science. ;-)

Kirk



-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@... on behalf of Geoff Read
Sent: Sat 8/22/2009 12:54 AM
To: <Annelida list
Subject: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer

FYI

Osborn KJ, Haddock SHD, Pleijel F, Madin LP, Rouse GW 2009. Deep-Sea, Swimming
Worms with Luminescent "Bombs". Science 325: 964 (and online 'supplement').

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=sci;325/5943/964

Swima bombiviridis named (new genus, new species of acrocirrid)

Abstract: "By using remotely operated vehicles, we found seven previously
unknown species of swimming annelid worms below 1800 meters. Specimens were
large and bore a variety of elaborate head appendages. In addition, five
species have pairs of ellipsoidal organs homologous to branchiae that produce
brilliant green bioluminescence when autotomized. Five genes were used to
determine the evolutionary relationships of these worms within
Cirratuliformia. These species form a clade within Acrocirridae and were not
closely related to either of the two known pelagic cirratuliforms. Thus, this
clade represents a third invasion of the pelagic realm from Cirratuliformia.
This finding emphasizes the wealth of discoveries to be made in pelagic and
deep demersal habitats."


Nice discovery. I want to know what they feed on, and how.

Geoff


--

 Geoff Read g.read@...
  http://www.annelida.net/
  http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa
 ***************************


NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
    


------ CONTACT INFORMATION ------
PD Dr. habil. Torsten H. Struck
University of Osnabrück
Department of Biology/Chemistry
Zoology
Barbarastrasse 11
D-49069 Osnabrück
Germany

Phone: +49-541-9693450
Fax: +49-541-9692587
e-mail: struck@...

<ATT00001.txt>

Greg Rouse
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA, 92093-0202
USA


e-mail: grouse@...
Office Ph:    +1 858 534 7973
Lab Ph:        +1 858 534 9941
Fax:             +1 858 534 7313

Courier delivery address:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
8750 Biological Grade
2170 Hubbs Hall
La Jolla, CA  92037
USA
.............................................................................




_______________________________________________ Annelida mailing list Post: Annelida@... Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida Resources: http://www.annelida.net

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug@...
http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html
http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

Re: Swima the swimmer]

by Greg Rouse :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi Kirk,
There are always compromises made when one is constructing papers. Otherwise we would never publish anything; endlessly waiting until we had assembled all the data that is deemed necessary by purists.

Phylogenetics is an iterative process and we all felt that the sequence data analysis, which incidentally will swamp any morphological dataset when its finished, was worth putting out as short note for a broad audience. A more complete detailed analysis and assessment, for digestion by the true friends of annelids, will appear in an appropriate journal in due course, and will no doubt pass unmentioned in this forum.

The methods we used produced congruent results with reference to the establishment and position of Swima, and so should satisfy phylogeneticists of various philosophies, with the exception of you of course. If we had published only the parsimony analysis, we would have expected similar disparaging rants from those who prefer model-based approaches. Being pluralistic does not diminish rigor or concern for evidence.

best,
greg

On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:41 AM, J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:

Thanks Greg. No matter what method is used, be it 'parsimony,' quasi-Bayesianism, etc., I would never accept the results when I know there are other relevant data that need to be considered. In lieu of even publishing a cladogram using the sequence data, it would have been appropriate to wait on the formal phylogenetics until the relevant data are compiled. There is no such thing as 'total evidence' analyses - an inference either considers one's available relevant evidence for the sake of maximizing rationality of explanation, or they opt for accepting that the results are going to be more irrational.

But since you mention it, I'm also deeply concerned at the fact that systematists routinely publish phylogenetic hypotheses using a variety of different methods, often with contradictory results, regardless of what data are used. Why do it? We can't compare the results because they're inferred from very different assumptions regarding theories, and no one has ever provided any good empirical arguments for the practice. It seems we've lost sight (or maybe never had it) of why those trees are produced in the first place, and are too enamored with the fact that computers can produce branching diagrams whenever we want 'em.

I'm sorry for coming across so critically, but, we have to face the fact that a critical attitude toward phylogenetics is just plain absent. It's a dangerous situation when a field of science becomes so complacent that any sort of method is acceptable and in fact condoned.

Kirk

Greg Rouse wrote:
Kirk,
Please consult the Supplement for details on a maximum parsimony analysis that I assume you would not find dubious. A total evidence analysis (i.e., a "limited set of sequence data", plus what must also be called a "limited set" of morphological data) will appear in due course that may alleviate your other concern.
greg

On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:15 AM, J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:

The phylogenetic hypotheses are only 'solid' insofar as they explain a limited set of sequence data. Given that the authors must know they are actively avoiding considering all sorts of other relevant data that are in need of being explained in the same context, e.g. the setae as Jim Blake noted, and the use of Bayes Theorem is not meant for the inference of hypotheses, then Torsten's endorsement is ill-founded at best.

But then, let's not quibble with the fine points of doing good science - it's more important to impose blind acceptance of methods by even more blind endorsement.

Kirk

Struck, Torsten wrote:
Indeed, it is a nice discovery and very interesting. Moreover, the
phylogenetic hypotheses are very solid (not at all "dubios at best") and
good in comparison to several other analyses out there.

Nice work Karen,

Torsten.


On 8/22/09 10:30 AM, "Kirk Fitzhugh" kfitzhug@... wrote:

  
Nice discoveries indeed. It's unfortunate that the scientific merits of the
phylogenetic hypotheses are dubious at best. But then, it *is* published in
Science. ;-)

Kirk



-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces@... on behalf of Geoff Read
Sent: Sat 8/22/2009 12:54 AM
To: <Annelida list
Subject: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer

FYI

Osborn KJ, Haddock SHD, Pleijel F, Madin LP, Rouse GW 2009. Deep-Sea, Swimming
Worms with Luminescent "Bombs". Science 325: 964 (and online 'supplement').

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/citmgr?gca=sci;325/5943/964

Swima bombiviridis named (new genus, new species of acrocirrid)

Abstract: "By using remotely operated vehicles, we found seven previously
unknown species of swimming annelid worms below 1800 meters. Specimens were
large and bore a variety of elaborate head appendages. In addition, five
species have pairs of ellipsoidal organs homologous to branchiae that produce
brilliant green bioluminescence when autotomized. Five genes were used to
determine the evolutionary relationships of these worms within
Cirratuliformia. These species form a clade within Acrocirridae and were not
closely related to either of the two known pelagic cirratuliforms. Thus, this
clade represents a third invasion of the pelagic realm from Cirratuliformia.
This finding emphasizes the wealth of discoveries to be made in pelagic and
deep demersal habitats."


Nice discovery. I want to know what they feed on, and how.

Geoff


--

 Geoff Read g.read@...
  http://www.annelida.net/
  http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa
 ***************************


NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net



_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
    


------ CONTACT INFORMATION ------
PD Dr. habil. Torsten H. Struck
University of Osnabrück
Department of Biology/Chemistry
Zoology
Barbarastrasse 11
D-49069 Osnabrück
Germany

Phone: +49-541-9693450
Fax: +49-541-9692587
e-mail: struck@...

<ATT00001.txt>

Greg Rouse
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA, 92093-0202
USA


e-mail: grouse@...
Office Ph:    +1 858 534 7973
Lab Ph:        +1 858 534 9941
Fax:             +1 858 534 7313

Courier delivery address:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
8750 Biological Grade
2170 Hubbs Hall
La Jolla, CA  92037
USA
.............................................................................




_______________________________________________ Annelida mailing list Post: Annelida@... Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida Resources: http://www.annelida.net

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug@...
http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.html
http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<ATT00001.txt>

Greg Rouse
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA, 92093-0202
USA


e-mail: grouse@...
Office Ph:    +1 858 534 7973
Lab Ph:        +1 858 534 9941
Fax:             +1 858 534 7313

Courier delivery address:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
8750 Biological Grade
2170 Hubbs Hall
La Jolla, CA  92037
USA
.............................................................................




_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

RE: Swima the swimmer]

by J. Kirk Fitzhugh :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

RE: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer]

Thanks Greg. Replies inserted below. ...Kirk

Greg: There are always compromises made when one is constructing papers. Otherwise we would never publish anything; endlessly waiting until we had assembled all the data that is deemed necessary by purists.

Kirk: I have no problem with people having different perspectives on how to do systematics. But, the field can’t operate in a vacuum immune from the more general foundations that have been explicated and found uncontroversial in science as a whole. I fail to see how it’s appropriate to label me a ‘purist’ for finding such a basic point of view important. You claim that “we would never publish anything” if we followed “purists.” I’m perplexed why you’d say this, when you’ve said several times that you intend on presenting a more comprehensive analysis, even though you’re not a “purist.” I guess the problem isn’t with “purists” after all. It’s not so much that people publish cladograms using sequence data yet relegate mention of other characters only when describing specimens for formal nomenclatural reasons that bothers me; it’s the fact that they know of the requirement of total evidence since it’s been in the systematics literature since 1989 and the broader scientific literature since the 1950's and provide no valid epistemic reasons for violating it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with labeling anyone a “purist,” but has everything to do with applying principles of reasoning that transcend all fields of science.

Greg: Phylogenetics is an iterative process and we all felt that the sequence data analysis, which incidentally will swamp any morphological dataset when its finished, was worth putting out as short note for a broad audience. A more complete detailed analysis and assessment, for digestion by the true friends of annelids, will appear in an appropriate journal in due course, and will no doubt pass unmentioned in this forum.

Kirk: While systematics might be an iterative process (whatever that means), data “swamping” is a straw man argument. Given that our goal is to present explanations of observations, the number of observations of any class of character is irrelevant. The issue is that an explanation of a set of effects that willfully excludes other effects known to be relevant to the explanations of either set should be viewed with scepticism. For the life of me, I fail to see why this simple observation would be met with the need to label me a “purist.”

Greg: The methods we used produced congruent results with reference to the establishment and position of Swima, and so should satisfy phylogeneticists of various philosophies, with the exception of you of course. If we had published only the parsimony analysis, we would have expected similar disparaging rants from those who prefer model-based approaches. Being pluralistic does not diminish rigor or concern for evidence.

Kirk: While this won’t make a bit of difference, I have published extensively on the fact that congruence is a meaningless measure. While the exercise of showing congruence might be satisfactory to those who need it, this is no justification for its acceptance. I encourage anyone to go through my analyses of this subject and show me where I’m mistaken, rather than simply labeling me a “purist” and ignoring the arguments that have been presented. What I’ve brought to this forum isn’t a disparaging “rant.” I’ve developed a rather solid published groundwork for my position. If that qualifies as a “rant,” then I’d have to say it’s one of the more sane “rants” in systematics.

I have no doubt that using any available options in a computer package doesn’t diminish anyone’s interest in evidence. But a pluralistic approach in this context is one of sacrificing one of the uncontroversial maxims of reasoning in all the sciences.


_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

Re: Swima the swimmer

by Geoff Read :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


Besides space here, the green bombers have since been taken up by the news agencies of the world, but I think that for once the Annelida list would have heard about them not long after the story was out of embargo.

National Geographic presents more photos, if you want to see a close-up green bomb.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/photogalleries/worms-glowing-bombs-green-pictures/

and  the Scripps release is:

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1012


Cheers,

Geoff












NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

Publicity is good - usually

by Geoff Read :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi all,

What is mentioned in this forum is up to its subscribers, and there's
quite a variety of topics that come up.  Annelid news items that hit the
press generally come from me - don't know why, but perhaps because I'm
in New Zealand which sees the next calendar date before most other
countries. Feel free to post about items earlier if you're directly
involved. I also am able to see the stories in the weeklys like Science
and Nature.  Some stories get posted because they're pet interests of
mine, or I find them amusing or odd, and anyone can do that too.

 I don't have time to keep up with all new papers on annelids, however
interesting, and the alerting systems offered by journals are pretty
good these days (Greg). If anyone wants an earlier mention or there's
some particular reason to do so (like a pdf available of a subscriber
only journal, a controversial or significant topic, when feedback
wanted) then an email can be sent direct to Annelida
<Annelida@...> , most likely phrased in that modest,
self-deprecating way people tend to use for their own work.

However, it's especially helpful if new books are announced here by
those involved, because the abstracting agencies either ignore them or
take months to notice them.

In this regard:

New books

Publication of the Zoosymposia volume "Proceedings of the 9th
International Polychaete Conference" is imminent, as those who attended
the conference will be aware. Watch this
http://www.mapress.com/zoosymposia/content.htm space.

There's a multi-authored Annelida chapter in this book below, brewing 9
years since the species 2000 program began. But the book should be of
wider interest. Alert your librarians for a possible purchase. Part 1 of
an attempt to document all known biota in NZ. The 3 volumes will attempt
to list every one of the 55,000-plus known species of New Zealand’s
animals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms, and each chapter is an
authoritative, if necessarily brief overview of a phylum.

New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity. Volume 1. Kingdom Animalia:
Radiata, Lophotrochozoa, Deuterostomia. Canterbury University Press,
568
[+ 16] p. NZD $89.95.  www.cup.canterbury.ac.nz  
http://www.cup.canterbury.ac.nz/catalogue/NZ_Inventory.shtml 

Publicity doesn't say if the below book was commissioned, or the result
of a meeting. Several of you will know this. I don't.

Annelids in Modern Biology, edited by Daniel H. Shain
http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470344210.html 

ISBN: 978-0-470-34421-7
Hardcover
359 pages
March 2009, Wiley-Blackwell

Cheers,

Geoff



--

 Geoff Read <g.read@...>
  http://www.annelida.net/
  http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa
 ***************************


NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
Atmospheric Research Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net

position vacant

by Pat Hutchings :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

The Australian Museum is advertising for a new Assistant Director -head of Research and Collections

Assistant Director – Research and Collections, SES Grade 1, Assistant Director Australian Museum. (Pos No AM304/009). Term Appointment (SES) Full-time.
Please visit AM website

www.australianmuseum.net.au/position/assistant-director-research-collections

Closing date:13 November 2009


Position Description:AM304 Assistant Director RC.docSummary
Assistant Director, Research & Collections, SES Grade 1, Australian Museum. Term Appointment (SES). Full-time. Position No. AM304/09. An attractive remuneration package including salary in the range of $144,800 to $169,550 p.a. will be negotiated with the successful applicant for a contract period of up to 5 years, with annual performance reviews.
Lead the strategic planning and management of the Research and Collections Division of the Australian Museum, and promote the scientific capacities of the Museum to external stakeholders

Selection Criteria:
1.Excellent leadership, vision, management, communication and negotiation skills, with a commitment to best practice, ideally in a research context.
2.Appropriate Tertiary qualifications (PhD or equivalent experience), with practical professional experience and accumulated knowledge relevant to the management of cultural, zoological and geological research and/or collections.
3.Ability to manage the day-to-day operations of a complex multi-disciplinary research/educational division.
4.Awareness of relevant current science issues, and of the scientific community roles of modern natural history museums.
5.Ability to develop and implement strategies for the advancement of the Division with limited resources, in line with Museum and Government policy and Public Sector reform principles.
6.Ability to attract funding for research and related programs.
7.Effectiveness in formulating policy and ability to contribute to the development of Government policies relating to science, especially in the areas of biodiversity, scientific information and conservation.
Applications Marked ‘Confidential’ To: Human Resources Officer, via email, hr@...
or visit jobsnsw www.jobs.nsw.gov.au/
Assistant Director - Research and Collections for full job details including selection criteria, inquiries contact and the position description.



Dr Pat Hutchings
Senior Principal Research Scientist
Research Branch Marine Invertebrates

Australian Museum
6 College Street Sydney NSW 2010
t 61 2 93206243  f 61 2 93206050 m 0417486821
pat.hutchings@...  www.australianmuseum.net.au

 Just released: The Great Barrier Reef Biology, Environment and Management edited by Pat Hutchings, Mike Kingsford and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. CSIRO Publishing 2008.


#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################

The Australian Museum.

�Egyptian Treasures: art of the pharaohs� exhibition until 6 December 2009!

The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in this email message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any attached files is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. The Australian Museum does not guarantee the accuracy of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. As Internet communications are not secure, the Australian Museum does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida@...
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net