David and Ecolog: As Hayakawa might put it, words can perhaps have different "semantic alliances," but not different DEFINITIONS. See, "meaning" and "definition" can be used interchangeably, depending upon context because their definitions are close--so the reader or listener has to rely on context to understand what the speaker or writer means to say. Trouble begins when, as you point out someone MEANS adaptation, bus SAYS "progress." That's just picking the wrong word, and that's why using the language properly rather than carelessly is a skill that takes a lot of practice, especially in the Tower of Babble that is "most of the English language." Just because the popular lexicon is sloppy, does not mean that clarity should be abandoned as a goal, and scholars above all should be politely but firmly insistent upon "proper usage." It reminds me of the old story about Samuel Johnson, who was not perfect with respect to personal hygiene. At a grand supper and Lady something-or-other seated next to him turned to him and said rather imperiously, "Sir, you SMELL!" Johnson said, "Madam, YOU smell--I STINK!"
WT ----- Original Message ----- From: <mcnee...@cox.net> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>; "Wayne Tyson" <landr...@cox.net> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions > ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: >> A term is worthless if it has more than one meaning. Especially when the >> stakes are high, unless one's just kidding around, when the confusion can be >> punny. Shirley, you can't be Cereus? > > But from the discussion, it is clear that people are talking about different > meanings for "progress." Some mean development of what they perceive as > "superior" organisms. Others speak of adaptation. They are not the same > thing, and I for one does not think that there are some kinds of organisms > that are better than others, just different. But there are adaptations to > different environments, or different adaptations to similar environments. > > What your wife said. It was right. >> >> WT >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <mcnee...@cox.net> >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>; "Wayne Tyson" <landr...@cox.net> >> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> >> >> ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: >> > David and Ecolog: >> > >> > I think I understand and believe everything you say except I do not >> > understand how you conclude that the discussion is one of semantics. >> >> It is a matter of what "improve," "better," and "advance" mean. To >> different people, they mean different things. >> > >> > WT >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> >> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:09 AM >> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > >> > >> > Hello All, >> > >> > I believe that the argument here, and throughout this discussion, IS one >> > of semantics. It arises from the view that non-scientists have taken in >> > the past that holds that recent organisms are in some way better >> > organisms. They definitely have viewed humans as some sort of pinnacle of >> > the natural world. Concomitant with that they have viewed mammals as >> > better organisms than reptiles, reptiles as better than amphibians and so >> > on. Bacteria, from that perspective, would be very incomplete and >> > inferior organisms. The alternative view is that each population of >> > organisms is an adaptation to circumstances, building on what was >> > available before, and no kind of organism is any better or worse than any >> > other kind in that regard. An iguana is a marvel of adaptation, as is a >> > human being. >> > >> > Evolutionists early on objected to this particular concept of phylogenetic >> > improvement, and still do, but some non-scientists cling to it. The >> > belief that some kinds of organisms are better than others in the extreme >> > is a part of creationism, but creationism is not prerequisite to such a >> > mind set. >> > >> > What you are arguing is that adaptation works. None of us would dispute >> > that, or at least I would not. But having accepted that, I would also >> > have to offer the caveat that environments change, and what constitutes >> > successful adaptation for a population evolved in one environment simply >> > does not work when that environment is replaced. This does not mean that >> > the population consists of inferior organisms, but rather that they have >> > become maladapted. >> > >> > This is one person's understanding and others may think differently. >> > >> > Sincerely, David McNeely >> > >> > ---- Jeff Houlahan <jeffh...@unb.ca> wrote: >> > > Hi Joey, I am not arguing that evolution has led to progress on some >> > > axis - that's an empirical question. I am only arguing that it is not a >> > > misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection to suggest that it is >> > > possible. You've stated conclusively that evolution by natural >> > > selection cannot lead to progress. So, if I could provide empirical >> > > evidence that, on average, current organisms are better adapted to their >> > > environments than organisms were 3,000,000,0000 years ago would you >> > > still deny that was progress? I'm OK with that but it's just a semantic >> > > issue then - something that I would be willing to call progress you >> > > wouldn't be willing. On the other hand, if you're saying that it's not >> > > possible that over time time organisms have become better adapted to >> > > their environments then our difference of opinion is more fundamental. >> > > But, keep in mind - this is not a debate about whether evolution by >> > > natural selection HAS resulted in progress, it is about whether it's >> > > reasonable to ask the question, has evolution resulted in progress? >> > > Just because the answer might be no doesn't mean the question doesn't >> > > make sense. >> > And what about the example from Lenski's work - he has absolutely >> > demonstrated in his population of E. coli that later generations were more >> > fit than earlier generations. The population that had been around longer >> > was better adapted. Why would it be possible over 75,000 generations of >> > E.coli but not possible as a general rule? >> > The problem I have is not that you believe that evolution by natural >> > selection has not resulted in better adapted organisms - it's that you >> > believe that anybody who suggests it's possible, misunderstands evolution >> > by natural selection. Best, Jeff Houlahan >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> > [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Joey Smokey >> > [northwestbird...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: December 6, 2012 7:24 PM >> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > >> > Ecolog: >> > >> > I would like to commend Wayne for his devil's advocate approach to >> > suggesting the third question and starting this discussion. It seems my >> > original interpretation was correct: the whole purpose of the question was >> > to dispel the misconceptions around the semantics of evolution. >> > >> > I find it interesting how several of you use the word "progress" in >> > different contexts, and I especially like the idea of defining progress >> > along some sort of axis, such as increasing complexity. This all being >> > said, I do have some retorts. Firstly, if the argument is to be made that >> > evolution leads to increasingly complex life forms, it should be noted >> > that >> > this has happened many times in evolutionary history. Adaptive radiations >> > and mass extinctions produce a cycle of "simple-to-diverse" organisms over >> > millenia. However, at the end of every mass extinction, the >> > diversification >> > of organisms and their niches is eliminated, and complexity of life is >> > severely reduced. So, given our idea of progress, however you want to >> > define it, you still cannot use it. If organisms did in fact progress over >> > whatever axis you'd like to use, then despite mass extinctions they would >> > continue to become more and more advanced. We are currently in the middle >> > of an anthropogenic mass extinction, whether or not some folks want to >> > accept that, and at the end of it, the complexity of life as we know it >> > will vanish. Fact: prokaryotes have remained simple unicellular organisms >> > for billions of years for a reason. :) >> > >> > To the point of evolution of individuals, populations, and communities: >> > Individuals and communities do not evolve. I think the idea of community >> > evolution has been sufficiently put the rest already. To use semantics >> > correctly: natural selection acts on individuals and has consequences on >> > allelic frequencies in populations. One individual organism cannot evolve, >> > because its allelic frequency never changes throughout its life. But, >> > natural selection can cause it to influence the allelic frequency of >> > future >> > generations in the population, and that -is- evolution. Also, when folks >> > use the terms of "fittest" and "survival of the fittest", etc., that >> > should >> > be avoided. The four postulates of natural selection lead to relative >> > fitness. In other words, one individual can only have a slightly higher >> > fitness than another. Liz already alluded to this; and I also quite like >> > her noting that even our own species is by no means "perfect." >> > >> > Recapping: Evolution is not directional. Evolution is not perfect. And >> > evolution does not lead to the good of the species (example: infanticide). >> > Evolution leads to organisms being well-adapted to their environment at a >> > specific time. Temporal environmental changes (i.e. climate change) lead >> > to >> > organisms no longer being well-adapted to their environment, and they must >> > either adapt or face extinction. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Joey Smokey >> > WSU Vancouver >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Houlahan <jeffh...@unb.ca> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, admittedly evolution by natural selection has no goal - it just >> > > happens. But, the logical outcome of natural selection is a population >> > > containing fitter organisms. Richard Lenski's experiments have shown >> > > conclusively that the E. coli in his cultures that have evolved for >> > > longer >> > > are fitter (using competitive ability as an index of fitness). If we >> > > can't >> > > call that 'progress' then we've put some pretty narrow constraints on >> > > the >> > > word progress and presumably progress can only be used in human contexts >> > > where there are explicit and clearly defined goals. OK. But that just >> > > means we need to rephrase the question to avoid the use of the word >> > > progress (although it's the same question, I think) - as we move from >> > > the >> > > first living organisms to the current group of living organisms, have >> > > living organisms, on average, become better adapted to their >> > > environments? >> > > I don't know if this is a testable question but it doesn't seem like an >> > > illogical one. And I have to confess, I see it as semantic >> > > hairsplitting >> > > to be unwilling to talk about 'better adapted to their environment' as >> > > progress. Best, Jeff Houlahan. >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ >> > > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Rachel Bolus >> > > [r...@bio.umass.edu] >> > > Sent: December 6, 2012 2:15 PM >> > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > > >> > > Hello >> > > I think that the interesting debate generated by the issue of >> > > "evolutionary progress" is exactly why it's a good topic for this panel. >> > > It makes people think carefully about definitions and the processes. I >> > > also think that Chris Edge just hit the nail on the head about our >> > > misuse of the word "progress." "Progress" or "advancement" suggests >> > > teleology, which has been largely rejected by evolutionary biologists. >> > > >> > > One of the reasons why we stumble over the question, "Do organisms >> > > advance over time?" is that we confuse complexity with progress. Yes, on >> > > average, organisms become more complex over time, because the process of >> > > evolution is the accumulation of changes in traits of individuals in >> > > populations over time. Although losses are part of this process, gains >> > > are added on top of previous gains, resulting in more complexity >> > > (especially in the multi-celled organisms that more frequently catch our >> > > eye). >> > > >> > > Is complexity progress? As humans, our intuition tell us, "yes" because >> > > we like shiny complex things (perception bias, perhaps?). If we are >> > > handed two tablets, one that is a chalkboard and one that is an iPad, we >> > > know which one we think is better. But when the flood comes, which one >> > > is still functional afterwards? Adaptation results in organisms fitting >> > > their environment better, but the more adapted we are to a particular >> > > environment, the less flexible we are to change. In a large time scale, >> > > flexibility should trump complexity. Sometimes more complex things are >> > > better able to adjust to changes in the environment, sometimes they >> > > aren't. In a "stable" environment (if it exists) what organism is best >> > > able to survive and reproduce may be complex or may be simple. >> > > >> > > What is "better" is largely subjective- is it complexity, adaptation >> > > (resistant microbes!), size (currently, blue whales!), intelligence >> > > (humans!), ability to produce the most offspring and biomass possible >> > > (fungi!), ability to persist relatively unchanged across epochs >> > > (sponges!)... ? >> > > >> > > As an interrelated topic (the previous one is mostly evolutionary, with >> > > ecology included as part of the process of adaptation), it might be fun >> > > to include the changing ideas of forest succession (getting back to the >> > > issue of "Do communities evolve?"). Previously, it was thought that >> > > forest communities progressed towards climax stages, but now we realize >> > > how patchwork, stochastic, and cyclical this process is. >> > > >> > > Rachel Bolus >> > > Ph.D. Candidate >> > > Organismic & Evolutionary Biology >> > > University of Massachusetts Amherst >> > > >> > > On 12/6/2012 10:03 AM, Chris B. Edge wrote: >> > > > Hello all, >> > > > I have spent some time thinking about this topic over the last several >> > > > years. As a relatively 'green' evolutionary ecologist I rarely enter >> > > these >> > > > debates in public forums. >> > > > My opinion's are heavily influenced by Jared Diamond's writing on the >> > > > topic. In not as eloquent words 'progress' implies that there is a >> > > > goal >> > > or >> > > > target that evolution is moving towards. Of course we can define the >> > > > goal >> > > > or target post hoc, complexity, invasion of terrestrial habitats, etc. >> > > and >> > > > conclude that evolution has made progress. However non of these >> > > > goals/targets apply to all organisms or habitats, and non of them can >> > > > be >> > > > defined a priori. >> > > > 'Progress' may capture the essence of the message we want to get >> > > > across >> > > it >> > > > is not a good word to use to describe major evolutionary trajectories >> > > > unless the statement it is used in also includes the axis or scale >> > > progress >> > > > is to be measured on. Instead major trajectories should be described >> > > > as >> > > > they are, observed trajectories/trends. For example, consider these >> > > > two >> > > > statements; 1) 'evolution has resulted in a trend of increasing >> > > > complexity', and 2) 'evolution has made progress towards increasing >> > > > complexity'. The two statements convey the same message, but statement >> > > > 2 >> > > > implies that complexity is always good. In my opinion statement 1 is >> > > > much >> > > > better. >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Chris Edge >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Ecolog: >> > > >> >> > > >> Pryde is right on. But the reality is that evolution is misunderstood >> > > by a >> > > >> lot of people, and clarity on this subject would go a long way toward >> > > >> resolving some of the conflict arising therefrom. That will require >> > > clear >> > > >> statements from evolutionary biologists for starters, and perhaps a >> > > >> lot >> > > of >> > > >> article-writing and TV production that not only is more careful about >> > > the >> > > >> semantics used,* but actually getting the ball rolling toward rolling >> > > back >> > > >> the misconceptions. >> > > >> >> > > >> But first, you catch the rabbit--and even make the stew. Then serve >> > > >> it >> > > >> until it is found delicious. (As long as it's not bushmeat.) That is, >> > > get >> > > >> this matter thoroughly discussed by evolutionary biologists and >> > > >> others >> > > who >> > > >> understand the merits and deficiencies of the two "sides," then "make >> > > >> it >> > > >> news." >> > > >> >> > > >> WT >> > > >> >> > > >> *advancement, progress . . . >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > > >> From: Liz Pryde >> > > >> To: Wayne Tyson >> > > >> Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:00 PM >> > > >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> In Darwin's "Origin" the theory was one of adaptation, not >> > > advancement. >> > > >> Unfortunately Spencer coined the "fittest" remark and that was a >> > > popular >> > > >> mode of thinking at the time - when people were rather >> > > self-congratulatory >> > > >> about their scientific understandings of the natural world (how >> > > clever!). >> > > >> So, evolution was originally meant as an adaptation to the chance >> > > >> environment. It may or may not have been 'better' than the previous >> > > model, >> > > >> but it survived through chance, and we assume, advantage. This >> > > >> doesn't >> > > >> necessarily make it advantageous throughout time. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm sure we can all come up with improvements to the human body >> > > >> ;). >> > > >> Liz >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On 06/12/2012, at 2:47 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Joey and Ecolog >> > > >> >> > > >> I am the author of question 3, and the point is exactly the one >> > > made >> > > >> by Smokey, with which I fully agree. There do seem to be people who >> > > seem to >> > > >> be of the opinion that evolution IS progress, however. I posted this >> > > >> question to a well-known evolutionary biology forum and Richard >> > > >> Dawkins >> > > >> replied in the affirmative; when I asked for further clarification, >> > > there >> > > >> was no response (except one which agreed with my point; several >> > > >> others >> > > were >> > > >> outraged, and I ended up having to issue an "apology." David >> > > Attenborough, >> > > >> in one of his excellent TV programs used the term "advance," in >> > > discussing >> > > >> the matter with one of the world's top paleontologists, whom I >> > > >> emailed >> > > the >> > > >> raw question; he responded in the affirmative, that the creatures he >> > > >> was >> > > >> most famous for studying did "advance." When I responded by asking if >> > > >> he >> > > >> would then conclude that the genus Homo would then be an example of >> > > >> "evolutionary advance," the correspondence was terminated. >> > > >> >> > > >> My straw polling amongst "the public" tilts strongly in favor of >> > > >> "progress" or "advancement" with time, and while I'm not sure of all >> > > >> the >> > > >> sources that have contributed to this impression, the Time-Life book >> > > "Human >> > > >> Evolution," with its famous/infamous "March of Progress" illustration >> > > >> beginning with a quadruped ape and ending with an upright, apparently >> > > Aryan >> > > >> male. I know of no studies that have been done on this issue, and >> > > >> attempting to raise the discussion on respected websites causes more >> > > >> blowback than the kind of clarity that Smokey's concise statement >> > > brings to >> > > >> the discussion. >> > > >> >> > > >> Ecolog is a respected and large listserv. Will there be further >> > > >> comments, either in support or in refutation of Smokey's explanation, >> > > or is >> > > >> this subject one of those academic "third rails" that no one dare >> > > >> touch? >> > > >> Those who fear posting their comments here could send Smokey and me >> > > their >> > > >> comments directly if they want to avoid reprisals (the subject of >> > > reprisals >> > > >> for posts reared its ugly head several months ago, and believe it or >> > > not, >> > > >> the emails I received were not limited to students; I got several >> > > >> from >> > > >> professors). >> > > >> >> > > >> On the other hand, if this subject is considered unimportant, >> > > "proper" >> > > >> actions can be taken, eh? >> > > >> >> > > >> WT >> > > >> >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Smokey" < >> > > >> northwestbird...@gmail.com> >> > > >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:51 PM >> > > >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Jason, >> > > >> >> > > >> I strongly advise against the third question. Evolution is not >> > > >> directional, >> > > >> and the question is worded to suggest that it is. If the point >> > > of the >> > > >> question is to dispel the idea of evolution being directional, >> > > then >> > > >> it >> > > >> would be fine. >> > > >> >> > > >> There are many common misconceptions of organisms >> > > >> "progressing" >> > > >> through >> > > >> evolution. The most common is the typical classroom image of >> > > human >> > > >> evolution moving from ape-like toward human-like over time. >> > > >> Transition >> > > >> species in the fossil record do not suggest a progressive >> > > >> change >> > > >> from one >> > > >> type of body form into another. The transition to terrestrial >> > > life >> > > >> is the >> > > >> same way; transition species such as Tiktaalik, >> > > >> Eusthenopteron, >> > > and >> > > >> Ichthyostega did not "march along" until they were >> > > >> well-adapted >> > > for >> > > >> life on >> > > >> land. Evolution does not craft "improved" species or >> > > >> "advanced" >> > > >> species. It >> > > >> simply results in organisms being well-adapted for their >> > > environment >> > > >> at a >> > > >> given time. >> > > >> >> > > >> In regards to the fourth question, ecological time refers to >> > > >> immediate >> > > >> interactions between organisms and their environment. It does >> > > lead >> > > >> into >> > > >> evolutionary time and the change in allelic frequencies >> > > >> through >> > > >> generations. So, ecological interactions can and do have >> > > meaningful >> > > >> impact >> > > >> on evolutionary trajectories of species. >> > > >> >> > > >> I think the first two questions will lead into some good >> > > discussion. >> > > >> >> > > >> Best of luck on your discussion panel, >> > > >> >> > > >> Joey Smokey >> > > >> WSU Vancouver >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM, jason.strickland < >> > > >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Dear group, >> > > >> >> > > >> I have compiled some of the ideas that were given to me >> > > >> about >> > > my >> > > >> discussion panel. The response was much lower than I >> > > >> expected >> > > so >> > > >> if you >> > > >> have any ideas, feel free to share those as well. Thank you >> > > >> to >> > > all >> > > >> those >> > > >> that contributed. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> 1. Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly >> > > enough >> > > >> to >> > > >> respond to climate change/sea level rise to be >> > > >> evolutionarily >> > > >> relevant? >> > > >> >> > > >> 2. What impact will Genetically Modified Organisms >> > > >> have >> > > on >> > > >> the >> > > >> ecology and evolution of the modified species and other >> > > species? >> > > >> >> > > >> 3. Do organisms progress/improve/advance through >> > > evolution? >> > > >> >> > > >> 4. Do ecological processes/interactions last long >> > > >> enough >> > > to >> > > >> have any >> > > >> meaningful impact on the evolutionary trajectory of a >> > > >> species? >> > > >> >> > > >> Please share your thoughts on these topics or suggest >> > > >> others. >> > > >> >> > > >> Cheers, >> > > >> Jason Strickland >> > > >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu >> > > >> >> > > >> From: jason.strickland >> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM >> > > >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > > >> Subject: Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions >> > > >> >> > > >> Dear group, >> > > >> >> > > >> I am currently working on forming a discussion panel that >> > > >> will >> > > >> include two >> > > >> ecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics >> > > that >> > > >> involve >> > > >> merging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in >> > > >> front >> > > of >> > > >> 150-200 >> > > >> students ranging from undergraduates to post-docs (all in >> > > >> biology). The >> > > >> panel will happen on a Saturday morning so it needs to be an >> > > >> exciting >> > > >> discussion to hold the audience's interest and cause them to >> > > ask >> > > >> questions. >> > > >> >> > > >> I am looking for topics/questions that the two fields do not >> > > >> completely >> > > >> agree on. The goal is to have the panel disagree on topics >> > > >> to >> > > >> allow the >> > > >> students to learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest >> > > topics >> > > >> or >> > > >> questions that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have >> > > >> different >> > > >> viewpoints on, they would be greatly appreciated. I have a >> > > >> few >> > > >> topics >> > > >> already, but wanted to ask a larger audience to suggest >> > > >> topics >> > > to >> > > >> determine >> > > >> if there are certain topics/questions that come up >> > > >> frequently. >> > > >> Feel free to >> > > >> email me directly (jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto: >> > > >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu>) or respond to this post >> > > with >> > > >> your >> > > >> suggestions. >> > > >> >> > > >> Thank you in advance for your help, >> > > >> >> > > >> Jason Strickland >> > > >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto: >> > > >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> ----- >> > > >> No virus found in this message. >> > > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> > > >> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5436 - Release Date: >> > > >> 12/04/12 >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Liz Pryde >> > > >> PhD Candidate (off-campus @ The University of Melbourne) >> > > >> School of Earth and Environmental Sciences >> > > >> James Cook University, QLD >> > > >> >> > > >> elizabethpr...@gmail.com >> > > >> epr...@unimelb.edu.au >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > >> >> > > >> No virus found in this message. >> > > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> > > >> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5438 - Release Date: >> > > 12/05/12 >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Ph.D. Candidate >> > > Organismic & Evolutionary Biology >> > > University of Massachusetts Amherst >> > > 219 Morrill Science Center South >> > > Amherst, MA 01003 >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > David McNeely >> > >> > >> > ----- >> > No virus found in this message. >> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> > Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5443 - Release Date: 12/07/12 >> > >> >> -- >> David McNeely >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5443 - Release Date: 12/07/12 >> >> > > -- > David McNeely > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5443 - Release Date: 12/07/12 >
