The mummified remains of the Oxford dodo, the only soft tissue available for DNA analysis. The museum display is a cast.
News that a team of evolutionary biologists are reassessing what we thought we knew about the dodo, Raphus cucullatus, is a good excuse to look at what the dodo teaches us about evolution.
The dodo was a species of pigeon which had spread to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where in common with many island birds had lost the ability to fly. In the context of an island with no mammalian predators, any advantage of flight is balanced against the greater disadvantage of occasionally being blown out to sea. Natural selection, with no foresight and no plan, results in a flightless bird, and, as events transpire, extinction.
The arrival of Europeans with their rats, cats and dogs and need for supplies for a long sea voyage, was an environmental change that the dodo could not adapt to because evolution has no reverse gear and rarely reinvents what was lost earlier. The ground-nesting dodo like its close relative, on a neighbouring island, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire, Pezophaps solitaria, were doomed. They were extinct by the late 17th century.
Evolution is an unintelligent process. This would not be so, if species like the dodo had been intelligently designed by an omniscient designer, who could have foreseen and prepared for the coming of Europeans with their rats, cats and dogs. It is not an intelligent act to design a species headed for inevitable extinction because it can't adapt to what can be anticipated.
What information do you have on the 'Oxford dodo' and it's role in literature and biology? The "Oxford dodo" is a significant artifact in both biological and literary history. Here's an overview of its importance:The extinction of the dodo on Mauritius had a long-lasting effect on the island's ecosystem of which the dodo was an essential part, but its contribution to the history of Oxford and it's literary heritage that is perhaps as interesting, coming as it does from the fact that the 'New' Ashmolean Museum became the depository of the only known remains of a dodo, which, when the collection in the Ashmolean was shared with the Oxford University Natural History Museum, and Pitt Rivers museum, was housed there, where it fascinated the Oxford Academic, Charles Ludwig Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll (the Latinized form of Charles Ludwig).
In summary, the Oxford dodo is more than just a biological specimen; it is a symbol of extinction and a cultural icon that has influenced literature, conservation science, and our understanding of human impact on the natural world.
- Historical Background
- The Dodo: The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird native to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean. It became extinct in the late 17th century due to overhunting by humans and the introduction of non-native animals.
- Oxford Dodo: The Oxford dodo refers to the most complete known specimen of the dodo, which is housed at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. This specimen includes the only remaining soft tissue (a dried head and a foot) from any dodo in the world.
- Role in Biology
- Scientific Study: The Oxford dodo has played a crucial role in scientific studies on the species. Since it includes soft tissue, researchers have been able to extract DNA, providing insights into the dodo's genetic makeup and its relationship to other bird species.
- Extinction Studies: The dodo is often cited as one of the earliest recorded examples of human-caused extinction. The Oxford specimen has contributed to studies on extinction, illustrating the impact of human activity on isolated ecosystems.
- Role in Literature
- Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland": One of the most famous literary references to the dodo is in Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel *Alice's Adventures in Wonderland*. The dodo in the story is believed to represent Carroll himself, who had a stammer and sometimes introduced himself as "Do-do-Dodgson" (Carroll's real name was Charles Dodgson). The character of the dodo in the story is depicted as a wise figure who proposes the "Caucus-race," where everyone wins and all must have prizes—a satire on political processes.
- Symbol of Extinction: In literature and popular culture, the dodo has come to symbolize obsolescence and extinction, often representing something that is outdated or doomed to disappear. The Oxford dodo, as a physical reminder of a lost species, has reinforced this symbolism.
- Cultural and Educational Impact
- Exhibitions: The Oxford dodo has been featured in various exhibitions, not just as a scientific specimen but also as a cultural icon. It serves as a powerful educational tool about biodiversity loss and conservation.
- Inspiration for Research and Art: The dodo has inspired a wide range of research, from studies in paleontology and conservation biology to its portrayal in art, literature, and even in discussions about colonialism and its impact on indigenous species.
- Recent Developments
- DNA Analysis: Advances in DNA technology have allowed scientists to conduct more detailed studies on the Oxford dodo's remains, leading to a better understanding of its biology and the causes of its extinction. These studies are crucial for understanding the dynamics of extinction and the evolution of island species.
- Conservation Lessons: The story of the dodo, as illustrated by the Oxford specimen, is frequently used in discussions about conservation and the need to protect endangered species today. It serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of human activity on the environment.
Is there any evidence for the story that it was rescued from a bonfire of 'rubbish' at either the Ashmolean or the Oxford University Natural History Museum?
The story that the Oxford dodo was rescued from a bonfire of "rubbish" at the Ashmolean Museum, or the Oxford University Museum of Natural History is a widely circulated anecdote, but its accuracy is somewhat debated. Here's what is known:
- Origins of the Story
- Historical Context: The story typically claims that the dodo specimen, or parts of it, were nearly discarded during a clean-up or reorganization at one of the Oxford museums, likely the Ashmolean Museum, where the dodo was initially housed. The account suggests that someone recognized the value of the remains just in time to save them from being burned as rubbish.
- Attribution: This anecdote is often linked to John Tradescant the Younger, an early naturalist and collector, whose collection formed the core of the Ashmolean Museum's early holdings. It is also sometimes associated with Elias Ashmole, the museum's founder.
- Supporting Evidence
- Lack of Concrete Records: There is no definitive archival evidence or documentation to substantiate the bonfire rescue story. The tale seems to have been passed down through oral history and later written accounts, but without solid documentary support.
- Museum Records: Some records suggest that by the late 18th century, parts of the dodo specimen were discarded because they had decayed. The surviving head and foot were kept, while the rest of the body, which had likely decomposed significantly, was disposed of. This might have contributed to the myth that the specimen was almost entirely lost.
- Plausibility and Scholarly Opinions
- Scholarly Views: Historians and museum curators generally agree that while the story is plausible, it is likely an exaggeration or a simplification of events. It is plausible that during a period of reorganization or decay of the specimen, parts of the dodo were discarded, and someone recognized the importance of preserving the head and foot.
- Interpretation: The bonfire story has become part of the dodo's lore, serving as a dramatic reminder of how close we came to losing this invaluable specimen. Whether or not it is literally true, the story underscores the precarious nature of historical artifacts and the importance of preservation.
- Cultural Impact
- Moral of the Story: The bonfire rescue tale is often used to highlight the fragility of historical artifacts and the importance of vigilance in preservation. It also serves to enhance the mystique of the dodo, a species already surrounded by a sense of loss and extinction.
In summary, while the story of the Oxford dodo being rescued from a bonfire at either the Ashmolean or the Oxford University Museum of Natural History is an intriguing one, it remains an anecdote with limited concrete evidence. The story has likely been embellished over time, though it reflects the real dangers historical specimens face when not properly cared for.
Dodgson had a stammer and would introduce himself as Charles Do-Do-Dodgson, earning him the nickname Dodo Dodgson. When he wrote Alice in Wonderland, he based the Dodo on the 'Oxford dodo' and himself.
Part of the Oxford story concerning the Oxford dodo is probably apocryphal but serves to illustrate the importance of conservation, the fragility of specimens and recognising the importance of specimens which may not seem important at the time. The story is that it was saved from destruction at the last minute when it was destined for a bonfire of 'rubbish' that was being thrown out. The story varies as to who rescued it and whether it was the Ashmolean or the Natural History Museum that was about to burn it. What is probably true, and probably contributed to the story, is the fact that there was initially much more of the dodo but much of it decayed and was destroyed, leaving only the beak, feet and skin of the head and face.
The new study by researchers from the University of Southampton and Oxford University Museum is the subject of an open access paper in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, and a University of Southampton News release:
Rethinking the DodoCreationists might want to ignore or prepare to lie about the following, especially the section on the terminology and nomenclature background, which contains a description of how taxonomy has adapted to the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, cladistics, shared common ancestry and monophyletics as it will make distressing reading for those who have been fooled into believing that biologists are abandoning the TOE as not fit for purpose, since nothing could be further from the truth, as this paper shows:
Researchers are setting out to challenge our misconceptions about the Dodo, one of the most well-known but poorly understood species of bird.
In a paper published today in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society researchers from the University of Southampton, Natural History Museum (NHM) and Oxford University Museum of Natural History have undertaken the most comprehensive review of the taxonomy of the Dodo and its closest relative, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire.
They’ve painstakingly gone through 400 years’ worth of scientific literature and visited collections around the UK to ensure this iconic species, embodying humanity’s destructive potential, is correctly classified.
The Dodo was the first living thing that was recorded as being present and then disappeared. Before this, it hadn’t been thought possible for human beings to influence God’s creation in such a way. This was a time before the scientific principles and systems we rely on to label and classify a species were in place. Both the Dodo and the Solitaire were gone before we had a chance to understand what we were looking at.
Dr Neil J. Gostling, co-corresponding author
School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Correcting the record
Much of what was written about the Dodo and the Solitaire was based on accounts from Dutch sailors, representations by artists, and incomplete remains.
The lack of a definitive reference point (type specimen) or convention to label species (zoological nomenclature) led to a series of misidentifications in the centuries following their extinction. New species such as the Nazarene Dodo, the White Dodo, and the White Solitaire were named, but the paper confirms that none of these creatures existed. Still, these erroneous ‘pebbles’ sent ripples through the waters of zoological literature.
By the 18th and early 19th centuries, the Dodo and the Solitaire were considered to be mythological beasts. It was the hard work of Victorian-era scientists who finally proved that the Dodo and the Solitaire were not mythological but were giant ground doves. Unfortunately, no one could agree how many species there had been. Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries, researchers thought there were three different species, although some people thought there had been four or even five different species.
Dr. Mark T. Young, co-corresponding author
School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
To unpick this confusion, researchers went through all the literature on the Dodo and Rodriguez Solitaire encompassing hundreds of accounts dating back to 1598 and visited specimens around the UK, including the world’s only surviving soft tissue from the Dodo, in the Oxford Museum.
More has been written about the Dodo than any other bird, yet virtually nothing is known about it in life. Based on centuries of nomenclatural confusion, and some 400 years after its extinction, the Dodo and Solitaire, continue to prompt heated debate. We’ve gone from where the first statements were made, seen how these have developed, and identified various rabbit holes to correct the record, as best we can.
Dr Julian Hume, co-author
Bird Group
Natural History Museum
Tring Hertfordshire, UK.
Through this work, researchers were able to confirm that both birds were members of the columbid (pigeon and dove) family.
Understanding its wider relationships with other pigeons is of taxonomic importance, but from the perspective of conservation, the loss of the dodo and the solitaire a few decades later means a unique branch of the pigeon family tree was lost. There are no other birds alive today like these two species of giant ground dove.
Dr Neil J. Gostling.
Challenging our misconceptions
The Dodo was an integral part of the ecosystem of Mauritius.Artwork by Julian Pender Hume.
The researchers believe the popular idea of the Dodo as a fat, slow animal, predestined for extinction is flawed.
Even four centuries later, we have so much to learn about these remarkable birds. Was the Dodo really the dumb, slow animal we’ve been brought up to believe it was? The few written accounts of live Dodos say it was a fast-moving animal that loved the forest.
Dr. Mark T. Young.
Evidence from bone specimens suggests that the Dodo’s tendon which closed its toes was exceptionally powerful, analogous to climbing and running birds alive today. The dodo was almost certainly a very active, very fast animal. These creatures were perfectly adapted to their environment, but the islands they lived on lacked mammalian predators. So, when humans arrived, bringing rats, cats, and pigs, the Dodo and the Solitaire never stood a chance.
Dodos held an integral place in their ecosystems. If we understand them, we might be able to support ecosystem recovery in Mauritius, perhaps starting to undo the damage that began with the arrival of humans nearly half a millennium ago.
Dr Neil J. Gostling.
Learning ‘valuable lessons’
The study marks the beginning of a wider project to understand the biology of these iconic animals.
The mystery of the Dodo bird is about to be cracked wide open. We have assembled a fantastic team of scientists to uncover the true nature of this famous extinct bird. But we are not just looking back in time - our research could help save today's endangered birds too.
Using cutting-edge computer technology, we are piecing together how the Dodo lived and moved. This isn't just about satisfying our curiosity. By understanding how birds evolved in the past, we are learning valuable lessons that could help protect bird species today. It's like solving a 300-year-old puzzle, and the solution might just help us prevent more birds from going the way of the Dodo.
Professor Marcus O Heller, co-author
Bioengineering Research Group
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
The project will include work with palaeoartist Karen Fawcett , who has created a detailed, life-size model of the Dodo to bring the words on the pages of books and journal articles to life.Palaeoartist Karen Fawcett’s Dodo sculptureThe work is supported by the University of Southampton’s Institute for Life Sciences.This work has been the merging of science and art to achieve accuracy and realism so that these creatures come back from the dead, real and tangible for people to touch and see.
Karen Fawcett
Palaeoartist
The systematics and nomenclature of the Dodo and the Solitaire (Aves: Columbidae), and an overview of columbid family-group nomina is published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.The Institute was delighted to support this exciting work which exemplifies Southampton’s strength in interdisciplinary research and advanced scholarship.
Professor Max Crispin.
Director
Institute for Life Sciences.
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
The dodo was named before biologists understood about evolution and believed species were created without ancestors, so the idea of a systematic nomenclature which reflected the evolutionary relationships between species had not occurred to them, so the dodo and its close relative, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire, were given different family names. This new study proposes a new family name, Raphina, for both species which reflects their evolutionary relationship and puts them in their correct position in the evolutionary tree of the pigeons and doves (the columbids) based on a DNA analysis.Abstract
The Dodo and its extinct sister species, the Solitaire, are iconic exemplars of the destructive capabilities of humanity. These secondarily terrestrial columbids became extinct within a century of their first encounter with humanity. Their rapid extinction, with little material retained in natural history collections, led 18th and some early 19th century naturalists to believe that these aberrant birds were mythological. This meant that the nomenclatural publications in which their scientific nomina were established were based on accounts written before the species became extinct. As such, no type specimens were designated for either the Dodo or the Solitaire. Our in-depth historical overview of both species and associated family-group nomina found that the nominal authority of the Dodo-based family group is not what is reported in the literature. Moreover, our detailed review of the family-group nomina based on columbid genera ensures that the current columbid family-group systematization is valid. Changing nomenclatural norms between the 19th and 20th centuries had a profound impact on Dodo nomenclature; so much so that the Dodo is an example of how pervasive nomenclatural ‘ripples’ can be and a warning for our current world of multiple nomenclatural codes.
INTRODUCTION
The Mauritian Dodo, †Raphus cucullatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Fig. 1), and the Rodrigues Solitaire, †Pezophaps solitaria (Gmelin, 1789) (Fig. 2), are textbook examples of evolutionary transitions and of human-made extinctions. Their morphologies were so aberrant that for a time, during the 18th and early 19th centuries, they were considered mythological (Duncan 1828, de Blainville 1835, Strickland 1844, 1848, Hume 2006; see Figs 1, 2). As said by Strickland (1848: 4): ‘So rapid and so complete was their extinction that the vague descriptions given of them [Dodo and Solitaire] by early navigators were long regarded as fabulous or exaggerated, and these birds, almost contemporaries of our great-grandfathers, became associated in the minds of many persons with the Griffin and the Phœnix of mythological antiquity’. The existence of the Solitaire, in particular, was long doubted, because for several decades it was known solely from the descriptions by Leguat (1708). Strickland (1844: 324) mentioned that the Solitaire had been considered either ‘fictitious, or to be founded on an imperfect description of the true Dodo’.
A series of key papers during the early 19th century ‘resurrected’ the Dodo and the Solitaire from the realm of the mythological to the material (Duncan 1828, de Blainville 1835, Strickland 1844). The seminal work of Strickland (1848) and Melville (1848.1), in their shared volume, described in detail the anatomy of specimens still found in European collections at that time, in addition to giving an authoritative account of the history of the two species. However, it was not until new expeditions to the islands of Mauritius and Rodrigues during the 1860s that new incomplete skeletons of both species were discovered. The skeletal remains discovered in the ‘Mare aux Songes’ marsh during 1865 (Clark 1866, Hume et al. 2009) allowed the Dodo to be described more fully (Owen 1866.1), and the Solitaire was described by Newton and Newton (1868, 1869) after the Jenner excavations of 1865 discovered skeletal remains (Parish 2013: 234; Hume et al. 2015).
Dodo (†Raphus cucullatus) mounted composite skeleton [NHMUK S/1988.50.1 (PV A 3302)]. A, cranial view. B, left lateral view.
Solitaire (†Pezophaps solitaria) mounted skeletons (on display at the Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK in 2023). A, female individual. B, male individual. Note the difference in skeleton size and robusticity between the sexes.
There has been renewed interest in the biology of the Dodo and the Solitaire in the 21st century. Studies have explored Dodo body mass (Brassey et al. 2016, van Heteren et al. 2017) and bone histology (Angst et al. 2017.1), and the endocranial anatomy of both species has been reconstructed digitally from computed tomography scans (Gold et al. 2016.1). New Dodo material has been discovered from Mare aux Songes, and the ecosystem of the Mare aux Songes Lagerstätte has been studied (see Rijsdijk et al. 2009.1, 2015.1, Meijer et al. 2012). The remarkable ‘Thirioux Dodos’ have been described in-depth, which includes the most complete Dodo skeleton known (Claessens and Hume 2015.2; Claessens et al. 2015.3). There have even been attempts to reconstruct digitally how these animals would have looked (Rodríguez-Pontes 2016.2). With each decade, our understanding of these aberrant birds is being revolutionized. To ensure that this work is on a firm basis, we need to ensure that the alpha and beta taxonomy (and accompanying nomenclature) of both species is stable. As we will show, there are no known type specimens for either species. Moreover, given that the use of Dodo-based (i.e. †Raphus) family-group nomina is now accepted within columbid systematics, we need to ensure that these names are themselves valid, in order to maintain the nomenclatural stability of extant pigeons and doves. To those ends, we provide an in-depth historical overview of the Dodo, the Solitaire, and the family-group nomina based upon them. We also establish a new nomen to unite both species: †Raphina.
Terminology and nomenclatural background
Before starting our historical overview, it is worth stating that the current rules of zoological nomenclatural are ‘relatively’ recent and have evolved from prior rules/suggestions made during the 19th century. We wish this to be clear from the outset, in order that readers will not mistake our comments hereafter as undue criticisms of past workers. There have also been dramatic shifts in both systematics (the paradigms and methods used to hypothesize clades) and nomenclature (the establishment of names for said clades, and the rules governing those names) between the 18th and 21st centuries. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the rules and norms of zoological nomenclature were being developed (e.g. Linnaeus 1758, Kirby 1815, Westwood 1836, 1837a, 1837.1b, Strickland 1837.2, 1878, Strickland et al. 1843, Dall 1878.1, Société Zoologique de France 1881, Douvillé 1882, American Ornithologists’ Union 1886, Blanchard 1889, Bütschli et al. 1893), prior to their widespread formulation and promulgation during the 20th century (ICZN 1905, 1961, 1964, 1985, 1999). Moreover, the paradigms used to hypothesize taxa were distinctly different, with the transition from a pre-evolutionary paradigm to an acceptance of paraphyletic groupings and groups united based on shared similarity, which then shifted to our current paradigm based on shared common ancestry and monophyletic groups (for a general overview of thought, see Mayr 1942, 1965, 1982, Hennig 1966, Nelson 1973, de Queiroz 1988, Mishler 2009.2; and for some clade-specific examples, see Allard et al. 1999.1, Dornburg and Near 2021, Cotterill et al. 2014 and the references therein).
The current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Fourth Edition, ICZN 1999, 2003, 2012.1, 2016.3; ‘Zoological Code’ hereafter) is a direct descendent of ‘Blanchard’s Code’ (Blanchard 1889) via the Règles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique [International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature] (ICZN 1905). Raphaël Blanchard, the ‘father of International Zoological Nomenclature’ (Bock 1994: 33), was the Chair of the nomenclatural committee of the International Congress of Zoology, the first President of the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature, and the Editor of the French edition of the Règles Internationales. For the first International Congress of Zoology, he wrote an overview of zoological nomenclature and outlined what he believed would be an acceptable set of rules for the international corpus of zoologists (‘Blanchard’s Code’; Blanchard 1889). ‘Blanchard’s Code’ did not exist in a vacuum, because a plethora of nomenclatural codes for zoology had been proposed during the 19th century, with the earliest comprehensive code being proposed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science (‘Strickland’s Code’).
‘Strickland’s Code’ (Strickland et al. 1843) was formulated by a committee of British zoologists and palaeontologists (including famous individuals, such as Charles Darwin and Richard Owen, in addition to Hugh Strickland, who was pivotal in our understanding of the Dodo and the Solitaire), who set down many of the norms we recognize today; norms of the so-called ‘Linnean’ system of nomenclature, although this is perhaps more accurately called ‘Linnean–Westwoodian–Stricklandian’ nomenclature (sensuDubois 2011: 4–5). However, there were some important differences between ‘Strickland’s Code’ and the current Zoological Code (ICZN 1999), such as the proposed ‘start date’ for zoological nomenclature, which in ‘Strickland’s Code’ was 1766, beginning with the publication of the 12th edition of Systema Naturæ (Linnaeus 1766). The ensuing controversy over the ‘start date’ for zoological nomenclature cost ‘Strickland’s Code’ support amongst zoologists (Linsley and Usinger 1959: 41), with Dall (1878.1: 15) noting that the starting point used by the British Association had begun ‘admitting to recognition some ichthyological works printed between the dates of the tenth and twelfth editions [of Systema Naturæ]’. Other national societies began proposing their own nomenclatural codes, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Dall 1878.1), the Société Zoologique de France (Société Zoologique de France 1881), the American Ornithologists’ Union (American Ornithologists’ Union 1886), and the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft (Bütschli et al. 1893), as did the Congrès international de géologie [International Congress of Geology] (Douvillé 1882). It was ‘Blanchard’s Code’ (Blanchard 1889) and the subsequent Règles Internationales (ICZN 1905) that would begin to bring international stability to zoological nomenclature (for further details, see Linsley and Usinger 1959, Bock 1994).
Zoological nomenclature of the 18th and early 19th centuries did not adhere to the quasi-legal system in place today. The renaming of pre-existing genera and specific epithets was commonplace (particularly up to the 1840s–1850s). Therefore, readers should not be surprised that the principal of priority with regard to nominal authority was not adhered to in Dodo nomenclature during this time period or that the formulation of names does not meet the requirements on the Zoological Code as we understand it today (ICZN 1999). It is also worth noting that when the Dodo and Solitaire were first named (Linnaeus 1766, Gmelin 1789), the concept of nomenclatural types did not exist. Witteveen (2016.4: 156) credited Westwood (1837a) as the originator of this concept, which then became incorporated into ‘Strickland’s Code’ (and subsequent nomenclatural codes). As such, type specimens were not designated for the Dodo or the Solitaire.
Before continuing, we also need to define the terminology we will be using. We will follow the suggestions and recommendations of Dubois and Fitzhugh. Dubois (2021.1: 39) noted that, ‘the term taxonomy is traditionally used in two distinct senses, to designate either a scientific discipline, or any scientific classification of organisms produced by this discipline and adopted as valid by taxonomists’. In order to distinguish between both meanings, Dubois (2005: 406) erected the term ergotaxonomy for the latter (‘classification used by a given author in a given work’, Dubois 2006.1: 250). To remove any ambiguity, we use the term ergotaxonomy to refer to any ‘taxonomic framework’ considered valid by their proposer.
We will use the term ‘systematics’ rather than ‘taxonomy’ throughout. There is disagreement within the field of evolutionary biology regarding whether taxonomy and systematics are different subfields (e.g. Simpson 1961.1, Wiley and Lieberman 2011.1), whether taxonomy is a subdiscipline within systematics (e.g. Michener et al. 1970, Dubois 2006.1, Pavlinov 2013.1, Winsor 2023 and the references therein), or whether systematics is a subfield of taxonomy (e.g. Toepfer 2011.2). However, others, such as Mayr and Ashlock (1991) and Fitzhugh (2008), have proposed that taxonomy is a synonym of systematics. We will follow Fitzhugh (2008: 54) and use the term ‘systematics’ throughout.
We also use the term ‘systematization’ in preference to ‘classification’ following Fitzhugh (2008). Fitzhugh (2008: 54) defined classification as the ‘segregation of objects into classes based on specified properties’, whereas systematization is ‘the organization of observations into a system of concepts, in the form of hypotheses, according to theory’ (the definitions of these terms given by de Queiroz 1988: 241 was similar). We consider the latter to be the best description of systematics, because both species and ‘higher-level’ clades are explanatory hypotheses rather than objects (e.g. see Fitzhugh 2005.1, 2008, Mortimer et al. 2021.2).
Herein, we follow ornithological convention and capitalize English vernacular names of species (Parkes 1978; and the International Ornithological Committee World Bird List v.13.2; https://www.worldbirdnames.org/english-names/spelling-rules/). Moreover, we use the English vernacular names for columbid species that appear in the International Ornithological Committee World Bird List v.13.2 (https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/bow/pigeons/), but with the following exceptions: (i) Didunculus strigirostris (Jardine, 1845) is referred to as the Samoan Tooth-billed Pigeon, because another species (†Didunculus placopedetesSteadman, 2006.2) was present throughout the islands that constitute the Kingdom of Tonga until ~2850 years ago (Steadman 2006.2; Worthy and Burley 2020) and was also present on Efate Island, Vanuatu (Worthy et al. 2015.4); and (ii) we generally refer to †Pezophaps solitaria as the Solitaire rather than the Rodrigues Solitaire, in order that it is consistent with the use of ‘the Dodo’ for †Raphus cucullatus (i.e. not using Mauritian Dodo). We follow Dubois (2000: 39) in using the term nomen (plural nomina) for any ‘scientific name’ that is formulated in compliance with a nomenclatural code, which, in this case, is the Zoological Code (ICZN 1999, 2003, 2012.2, 2016.5).
Our open nomenclature and synonymy lists follow the recommendations of Richter (1948) (see: Matthews 1973.1, who outlined them in English, and Becker 2001, who gave a recent overview in German), Sigovini et al. (2016.6), and Horton et al. (2021.3). Finally, we use the dagger (†) symbol in front of nomenclatural nomina that denote extinct taxa (except when they appear in quotations).
The fact that human agency could drive a species to extinction was a shock to the early biologists who subscribed to the 'creation' mythos and assumed that what God had created mankind would be unable to destroy. We now know that both parts of the superstition were wrong and disastrously so. Not only are species the product of their environment but can be destroyed simply by changing that environment. There is no god playing any part in the process and least of all protecting its 'creation'.
This realisation made the Oxford dodo an object of fascination especially for academics like Do-Do-Dodgson who saw in it a metaphor for revealed wisdom about the nature of reality and the difference between it and human expectations, based on religious mythology.
Creationists might find it distressing to read how modern taxonomy has been revised to reflect the modern evolutionary synthesis, recognising that species can be arranged in clades and family trees based on how they evolved and diversified from common ancestors which themselves were the result of diversification from earlier common ancestors. They will probably find it distressing too how a DNA analysis of an extinct species like the dodo is confirming that view of the origins of biodiversity and no sign of that impending abandonment of the Theory of Evolution that their cult leaders have been assuring them is about to happen, any day now, real soon.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.