Values, regulation, and species delimitation

Abstract

Garnett and Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] recently proposed that the International Union of the Biological Sciences should centrally regulate the taxonomy of complex organisms. Their proposal was met with much criticism (e.g. Hołyński 2017; Thomson et al., 2018), and perhaps most extensively from Raposo et al. (2017) in this journal. The main target of this criticism was GC’s call to, first, “restrict the freedom of taxonomic action”, and, second, to let social, political and conservation values weigh in on species classification. Some commentators even went as far as to draw a comparison with the infamous Lysenko-case of state-controlled and heavily restricted science (Raposo et al. 2017, 181; Hołyński 2017, 12). This comment will argue, without thereby endorsing GC’s position, that these two aspects of their views need not be as threatening as this comparison suggests, and indeed are very reasonable.

A global catalog of primary reptile type specimens

“…It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the huge body of literature on species delimitation, but recent reviews discuss this problem in detail (e.g. Conix 2018;Fujita et al 2012).…”

Ethnoontology: Ways of world‐building across cultures

“…For another example, consider debates about the role of non-epistemic values in ontology building. While many ontologists have acknowledged that ontologies reflect non-epistemic concerns (Conix, 2018;Ludwig, 2016;Mikkola, 2015), the four-factor model of ethnoontology can provide a much richer account of social concerns in ontology building while simultaneously acknowledging the importance of material and cognitive factors in the sense of Figure 2. Both debates about natural kinds and non-epistemic values illustrate how philosophical debates can benefit from engaging with the empirical complexity of ontology building across cultures.…”

Engineering bioerodible polymers with tailored micro/nanostructure for vaccine delivery

“…In the late 1950's through the mid 1960's Conix (1957;1958;1966) reported the synthesis of the poly[a,co-bis(p-carboxyphenoxy)alkanes], improving the fiber and film forming properties of polyanhydrides. From 1959-1962, Yoda (1959Yoda and Akihisa, 1959), being encouraged by the work of Conix, synthesized random copolymers by melt polycondensation and alternating copolymers by dehydrochlorination, from a variety of aliphatic and aromatic monomers in attempts to improve the fiber and film properties of polyanhydrides.…”

“…Gupta (1989) patented a melt polycondensation procedure from a bis(trimethylsilyl)ester of a dicarboxylic acid and a diacid chloride that produces alternating copolymers. The majority of recent work with polyanhydrides has been conducted using the polycondensation synthesis originated by Conix (1966) and later improved upon by .…”

“…Other polymers in family of poly [a,&-(pcarboxyphenoxy)alkanes that had originally been synthesized by Conix (1957;1958;1966) soon followed including PCPP, poly(terephthalic acid) (PTA) , and PCPH . Also included in the later study were poly(terephthalic-a/Zsebacic acid) (P(SA-a//-TA)), poly( 1,4-phenylene dipropionic acid) (PPDP) and poly [2,2'-(p-xylylenedithio)diacetic acid] (PXDA) .…”