From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham observatory and endangered red squirrels
Date: 16 Jul 1996 16:10:52 +0100

In article <4sg698$8il@staff.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew
	Taylor) writes:

   So either:

   a) The Mount Graham Squirrel is critically endangered and absolutely
   any disturbance is unacceptable.  In other words, the legislative
   bypassing of the ESA and construction is outrageous

I think some of what bothered some people, is that such outrage
surfaced rather suddenly when the observatory was planned,
after three roads and several other developments were already
on the mountain - opponents of the observatory also seem to
ignore that part of the deal is the closing of current roads
and a stop to all other development, while without an observatory
a number of, apparently far more disruptive, developments
are planned.

I'm a bit puzzled why legislative bypassing of a law is
outrageous. Surely ESA is not immutable, and should be
bypassed, by law, if it leading to absurd or counter-productive
measures. ESA is, I thought, a means to an end, not an end
in and of itself.

   b) The model is producing incorrect results.

Independent of any model, if the development causes perturbations
so small as not to be measurable, while precluding large
future perturbations, is it not at least conceivable that
it is to the benefit of, or at least neutral towards,
the squirrels? Or do you honestly contend that _any_ change
is harmful?

From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham observatory and endangered red squirrels
Date: 04 Aug 1996 18:48:27 +0100

In article <4tvjd8$nfs@rational.rational.com> donb@rational.com (Don Baccus) writes:

   In article <lk91c0og3w.fsf@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>,
   Steinn Sigurdsson <steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
   >In article <4tlkrb$q9d@rational.rational.com> donb@rational.com (Don Baccus) writes:

   >   The fact that they're classified as separate species or even as
   >   a separate genus implies genetic differences.  For a summary of

   >No it does not. It probably should, but in practice
   >it neither implies, nor is implied by it.

   Sure it does.  Now, you may wish to argue that in some cases the
   genetic differences are minimal and insignificant...indeed, this
   is what taxonomist due when they argue that two species should be
   "lumped", or a subspecies abolished.  This is different than saying
   to two populations are genetically identical.

   >   the morphological differences which derive from those genetic
   >   differences, go read the type descriptions.

   >"I don't know" would have been quicker.

   Ditto for you, dittohead.

That was stupid Baccus, I neither listen to
nor agree with Limbaugh. If this is the best
argument you can supply you have already lost
your case.

   >With all due deference to our taxonomy colleagues,
   >I'm not entirely impressed by their consistency.

   Well, I have no reason to expect that you know more about
   the subject than they do.  I do know that the framework of

Correct, but such a rebuttal does not actually address
my comment. I don't have to be a conductor to hear
when an orchestra misses a beat.

   classification provided by the AOU and IOU works very well
   for working ornithologists.  Can't speak up for the mammal
   folk, but imagine their system works, too, or else they'd
   change it.

   >Taxonomic classifications have a curious tendency to
   >depend on the track record of the discoverer.

   These classifications aren't cast in cement, however.  No
   one would argue that taxonomists are perfect - classificactions
   simply represent a snapshot of our state of knowledge at the
   time of the last update.

   >Witness the fine division of cetacea in the Pacific, while,
   >apparently, domesticated canines are a single undifferentiated
   >species.

   Differences in canines are artificially maintained.  Feral populations

That is a curious choice of distinction.

   of dogs rapidly converge to a single morphological type with little
   variation throughout the world.  This would seem to indicate to
   me that all dogs are the same species.  Your cetaceans, on the other
   hand, appear to maintain those fine distinction you complain about,
   in the wild.

Ah, no. The problem is that cetacean populations in the
central pacific, catalogued late, have been classified
into far more species than populations studied earlier,
mostly, I understand, because each new discoverer wanted
to name another few.

   >This is without contemplating the location of homo
   >in taxonomy, as compared to, say, E. coli.

   You think we belong in the same genus as E coli, or something?

Don't be too stupid. Single species of bacteria have been
found to have genome variations of up to 50%, while the taxonomic
spread among charismatic mammals is huge despite very little
genetic differences.

   If you're arguing that our species is treated as a special
   case, well...perhaps.  This has nothing to do with the taxonomy
   of squirrels, though.

See above.

   >The Mt Graham red squirrel is undoubtedly deserving
   >of protection (as it happens I think the observatory
   >grounds are the best practical way of ensuring it will
   >be protected...) - but it would have been more impressive
   >if one of its impassioned defenders could have told us,
   >off cuff, exactly what makes it different.

   Given the fact that it's different enough to satisfy taxonomists,
   I feel comfortable with telling you that the burden of proof
   lies with those who claim the taxonomists are wrong.

I don't claim the taxonomists are wrong, I just would
like some of the antagonists to tell me, here, now,
what the difference is. After all, it seems like it
is quite important to you.
 ...

   The ESA, of course, sides with taxonomists - not posters on
   the Internet, so the whole argument's moot.

Yup. The observatory's built, the squirrels are fine
and a lot of hot air was expended earning some long
term hostility in previously neutral or friendly
camps. Hope you're happy too.

From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Astronomy
Date: 04 Aug 1996 19:36:28 +0100

In article <3203036F.80D@actrix.gen.nz> Damon Lynch <nomad@actrix.gen.nz> writes:

   Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:

   > In article <31F5BB71.1B44@actrix.gen.nz> Damon Lynch <nomad@actrix.gen.nz> writes:
   >
   >    "bleeding heart nonsense" . . .  If I recall, I had simply posted a
   >    simple question--would someone be prepared to justify, face to face, to
   >    one of the least privileged members of earth's human population,
   >    existing levels of expenditure on what I call industrial astronomy.

   > Yes I would. Send one over.

   Such remarkable compassion!!

It was your idea. Did you not mean it to be taken seriously?
Or were you expecting me to waste some resources to go
somewhere I could do the justification in person?

	I strongly suspect that if there were more
   women that posted articles in this newsgroup, then the dynamics of the
   tone some people use would be quite different.

Why? And how do you claim to tell the gender of posters.

   >    What is so incredibly over the top in emotional terms about that?

   > Hmm, how many starving people could you feed for the price
   > of the computer and connection you used for this post?
   > Hell, in the time you wasted reading the Net you could
   > have been out there growing some food for the needy.

   Surely you must be able to come up with a more effective argument than

Yes, I can, and offered to at the beginning.
However, the simple counter-argument I offered is a start.
Why are you wasting your time on the Net if you feel it
is imperative to be feeding the starving? Or do you in fact
have some trade-offs between imperatives? If the latter it
provides a starting point for deabte.

   that?  It looks very much as though you are simply pouring on scorn.  It
   does not take much intelligence or skill to do that.  Indeed, until you
   popped up the discussion was constructive and conducted in good faith.

Your post, that I responded to, did not appear to me to be
constructive, nor in fact was your original set of comments.
I also suspect I am debating this in better faith than you,
look at my "Organization:" line - if I did not feel able
to justify "industrial astronomy" spending, I'd feel obliged
to leave the field.

   > Would you be prepared to justify, face to face,
   > to one of the least privileged member's of earth's
   > human population, exisiting levels of expenditure
   > on modern art exhibits? Professional sports?
   > Computer networks for New Zealand's middle class dilettantes
   > to posture on?

   In case you have not noticed, expenditure on astronomy is not trivial.

I had noticed, I work in the field.

   It is an issue that goes to the heart of what sort of scientific
   research we as a society ought to be conducting.  If you have a problem

Yes it is. I feel fundamental, curiousity driven research
is the key to all other successful, long term research endeavours,
and that astronomy and astrophysics are one of the most promising
in terms of long term advancement of human knowledge and
understanding.

What do you think?

   with people who raise legitimate queries about existing research
   priorities then why do you not just come right out and say so?

I have no problem with legitimate queries about research
priorities. I think snide comments like those you initiated
the debate with deserve a harsh response. Your initial comment
bordered on raw trolling.

From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham observatory and endangered red squirrels
Date: 05 Aug 1996 15:00:20 +0100

In article <4u3jvt$e5@rational.rational.com> donb@rational.com (Don Baccus) writes:

   In article <lk20hn2g7o.fsf@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>,
   Steinn Sigurdsson <steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

   >Correct, but such a rebuttal does not actually address
   >my comment. I don't have to be a conductor to hear
   >when an orchestra misses a beat.

   Hmmm...but you do need to (literally) know the score, don't you?

Nope, I just need to know the general compositional
rules - in science there is not the freedom to depart
from the rules.

   Wouldn't put it past some of those avant garde composers to
   write in a missed beat just to confuse the audience...

   In this case, the score would be the actual taxonomic work
   done on these squirrels.  Neither you nor I have intimate
   knowledge of the work.  You seem to claim that your lack

Nope, although conflicting claims as to the population
status have been presented (ie sub-species vs distinct
population and current genetic diveregence studies)

   of knowledge about the details justifies your skeptism.
   I say that overall, taxonomists do a reasonable job, and
   if they've screwed up with squirrels it's an anomaly, and
   without evidence to that effect I see no reason to presume it.

My general feeling is, when presented with scientific
claims, not to do sit back and say "ah, yes, they must
know what they're doing", but to try to scrutinise
the assumptions, reasoning and conclusions for inconsistencies,
flaws and errors. Scientists should generally do so, and
expect such scrutiny.

   >   Differences in canines are artificially maintained.  Feral populations

   >That is a curious choice of distinction.

   Not at all.  The fact that we can interbreed various wild species
   in captivity - gyrfalcon and peregrine, for instance - doesn't
   effect our belief that they are valid species.  Barriers to

But should it? As you presumably know, precisely such
problems are causing current anguish over the species concept.

   interbreeding artifically raised or artificially demolished don't
   seem to have much weight in our consideration of "what's a species".

Hmm, do you think behavioural or morphological differences
between irish wolfhounds and, say, pekinese, are in anyway
comparable to those of red squirrel sub-species? Indeed do
you think the two breeds are physically capable of direct
inter-breeding? Note the populations were geographically
separate for millennia, and subject to radically different
environments and selection pressures.

They are a single species, in that they will interbreed
with intermediaries and a mixed population will converge,
but then the same is presumably true of the Mt Graham and
non-Mt Graham red squirrels. There seems to me to be an
artificial inconsitency here - one of convention, not biology.

   You may wish to argue that our definition of species is wrong
   because dogs are lumped, but you'll need to start by deciding
   which definition of species you're arguing against (or, are
   you arguing against all of those which taxonomists argue
   over?)

   >Ah, no. The problem is that cetacean populations in the
   >central pacific, catalogued late, have been classified
   >into far more species than populations studied earlier,
   >mostly, I understand, because each new discoverer wanted
   >to name another few.

   If true, future research may cause them to be lumped.  How long
   ago are you speaking of?   Even if lumped, my guess is that the
   argument would be over whether they should keep species
   status or be demoted to subspecies status.    Both classifications
   are fully protected under the ESA, in part because of the fluidity
   of our taxonomies.

Classification of central pacific toothed whales was mostly
in the late 19C, this is from memory of a major text I read
about 5 years ago. Most of the current species, as defined,
are from that burst of nomenclature. The taxonomic response
since seems more to be to try to fragment the old single
species into sub-species or separate species.

   >Don't be too stupid. Single species of bacteria have been
   >found to have genome variations of up to 50%, while the taxonomic
   >spread among charismatic mammals is huge despite very little
   >genetic differences.

   Is the percentage of unexpressed dna the same in both cases?
   We carry around a lot of evolutionary history in our genome.

   Are you claiming that we can apply the same criteria for
   the definition of a species for bacteria and mammals,
   given that the former reproduce asexually?

Nope, I'm claiming there is an inconsistency in
the structure of taxonomy, that the kingdom-...-species
hierarchy is inconsistently applied.

   >   If you're arguing that our species is treated as a special
   >   case, well...perhaps.  This has nothing to do with the taxonomy
   >   of squirrels, though.

   >See above.

   What's your point?  We're certainly all the same species as we
   can interbreed fully.  Are you arguing we should be split
   into subspecies?  Do you have some specific suggestions in
   mind?

This is a curious question, given that I just argued
the opposite, namely that the taxonomic spread among
primates was anomalously large, compared with other
groups. I certainly do not think the spread should be
increased, quite the contrary, and would be curious
to hear the reasoning that lead you to this question.

   Still has nothing to do with squirrel taxonomy, though.  It's
   not even the same set of people doing the work.

I presume that is intended as a facetious aside.

   >   Given the fact that it's different enough to satisfy taxonomists,
   >   I feel comfortable with telling you that the burden of proof
   >   lies with those who claim the taxonomists are wrong.

   >I don't claim the taxonomists are wrong, I just would
   >like some of the antagonists to tell me, here, now,
   >what the difference is. After all, it seems like it
   >is quite important to you.

   The difference is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
   the ESA.  That is sufficient for me.  As I said, the law
   leaves it in the hands of taxonomists, not you or I.  Therefore,
   our opinion doesn't count.

I though the US was a democracy and the aggregate opinion
of its peoples determined the law. I gather the law was
not broken nor dispensed with.

   >   The ESA, of course, sides with taxonomists - not posters on
   >   the Internet, so the whole argument's moot.

   >Yup. The observatory's built, the squirrels are fine
   >and a lot of hot air was expended earning some long
   >term hostility in previously neutral or friendly
   >camps. Hope you're happy too.

   I wasn't part of the process, and am neither happy or unhappy.

Curious. You sounded most unhappy there for a while.

   No where have I argued that the observatory shouldn't have been
   built.  I've argued that some of the things you've been saying

 ???

   about the opponents don't apply to all of them, just as I
   disagree with your apparent viewpoint that taxonomy often does
   not reflect the real world in any useful way.

That is not my viewpoint, even if you perceive it to
be such. I think taxonomy has an unfortunate systematic
bias in how fine the species differentiation is, and I think
it has a blind spot in imposing an artificial distinction
on populations which diverged through anthropic selection,
vs other selection effects.

From: steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham observatory and endangered red squirrels
Date: 11 Aug 1996 16:49:58 +0100

In article <4uklvd$63h@staff.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:

   In article <lk20hn2g7o.fsf@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk>,
   Steinn Sigurdsson <steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
   >Ah, no. The problem is that cetacean populations in the
   >central pacific, catalogued late, have been classified
   >into far more species than populations studied earlier,
   >mostly, I understand, because each new discoverer wanted ...

   I can't see the point.  Sure taxonomists working on whales, last century
   and early this century made mistakes.  They were working from
   very limited material (often just a skull) and knowledge about
   about biology then was very limited.  There have been radical

The point was that this was an instance of where taxonomists
got access to a new set of populations of a class that was
well known, and promptly started classification divisions
that were inconsistent both with previous work on related
species and with their own definitions (as I understood it).

This is an insiduous bias in all taxonomic schemes - the
temptation to overclassify when you see something new.
It is a well know (and much joked about) tendency in
observational astronomy as well.

   changes in biology since.  Taxonomic mistakes are not immutable.  Taxa get
   revised all the time on the basis of new data or better analyses.

   These revisions cut both ways - sometimes species are split sometimes
   they are lumped.  This is another good reson to conserve subspecies.

   >Witness the fine division of cetacea in the Pacific, while,
   >apparently, domesticated canines are a single undifferentiated species.

   I can't see this in the whale books I have.  Domesticated canines are a

Well, maybe you need new whale books, or maybe you didn't
look very hard.

   red herring.  I don't think it is sensible to apply species definitions
   in this context.  They often won't work and this isn't a problem and it
   isn't suprising.

I don't see why domesticated canines are a red herring
in your opinion. Sub-breeds of canines have very different
vocalisation and behavioural patterns (in addition to very different
phenotypes). Many sub-breeds were geographically isolated for
millennia and only interbreed now because of anthropic
corridors. Further, some sub-breeds are pretty much incapable
of interbreeding. They do converge to a common type when interbred,
but then so presumably do sub-species of red squirrels.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

   >Don't be too stupid. Single species of bacteria have been
   >found to have genome variations of up to 50%, while the taxonomic
   >spread among charismatic mammals is huge despite very little
   >genetic differences.

   Species definitions for bacteria have little in common with those
   for mammals.  I personally can't see how you can make sensible

Yet they are fit in the same nomenclature hierarchy.
Thus either the nomenclature is inconsistent, or it does
not reflect true diversity but is biased towards charismatic species.

   comparisons here.  Taxonomic ranks above species are very different
   in nature.  There are certainly inconsistencies in the application
   of these ranks even within vertebrates.  I can't see why this is
   relevant to questions about species and subspecies.

I'm rather puzzled that you can't see why discussion of a legal measure
that is dependent on taxonomic rank of populations might not
require consideration of taxonomic consistency. I was not aware
that ESA formally only applied to some classes? The point about
E coli I noted was precisely that very distinct populations were
there considered a single species.

   > With all due deference to our taxonomy colleagues, I'm not entirely
   > impressed by their consistency.

   I don't think you know anything about taxonomy and its practice.

I certainly know something, you may feel it is not much,
or that it is not enough, but I can't know everything.
Your responses to some of my questions, while by far the
best of any on the Net, have not, I feel been conclusive
in allaying my concerns.

   When I talk to taxonomists I'm impressed with how difficult their work
   is and how well they do it.  They are far too few taxonomists for
   the work there is to do.

So become one and tuck in.