Postdoc Control of insect transmitted human diseases
NCSUinsectHumanDisease Job description: We are searching for an evolutionary biologist, or ecologist with experience in computer simulation modeling (C++ preferred) to work on an NIH-funded project. The successful candidate will build computer simulation models that link insect population dynamics and population genetics in a way that can contribute to improving strategies for releasing transgenic mosquitoes to reduce the incidence of human disease. Once the insect modeling is complete, disease epidemiology models will be built and linked to the insect models. The fellowship is for 2 years. In addition to working on model development and testing, the person in this position will collaborate in an interdisciplinary group funded by the Gates Foundation composed of mosquito ecologists, disease epidemiologists, molecular biologists, biomathematicians, ethicists, and scientists from disease-endemic countries, in efforts to develop novel transgenic strategies for disease reduction. The person in this position will work with the PI and at least one other postdoc in organizing a workshop to teach other researchers how to use the models. There will be an opportunity for some empirical research (if desired), and for interactions with other members of the lab who are working on other evolutionary and modeling research. Qualifications: Candidates should have doctorates in ecology, evolutionary biology, genetics, biomathematics, epidemiology, entomology, or a related field. A working knowledge of computer programming is essential. Rigorous training in population dynamics, population genetics and/or biomathematics are prerequisites for the position. Candidates with knowledge of entomology, disease epidemiology, and advanced computer programming would be preferred. Salary: Salary will be commensurate with experience ranging from $32,000 to $40,000. Source of funds: NIH grant 5-23612
why italics?
Why do we italicize only genus and species names when presenting taxonomic information? One web site I looked at claims that By the way, the italics are used only because it is proper, in writing, to italicize words that are in any language other than English. Aren't any other parts of the taxonomic hierarchy in Latin?
Re: why italics?
My guess is that it's just a matter of style. The binomial is just the generic and specific portion of the name -- not the family, order, etc. Italics are often used as a form of emphasis. Italicizing every taxonomic term up to kingdom that is based on foreign roots would dilute the effect. Note that scientific names are generally always italicized, regardless of the country of publication. (Even Greek scientific names would be italicized in Greece. I would think it is for emphasis, period. Also note that, regardless of what the Web site says, words of foreign origin are NOT always italicized. English is an amalgamation of many different languages. We'd go crazy trying to sort out the Saxon terms from the Celtic terms from the Norse terms from the French terms, etc. (Not to mention the p-Celtic from the q-Celtic, or whatever.) Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 1:42 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: why italics? Why do we italicize only genus and species names when presenting taxonomic information? One web site I looked at claims that By the way, the italics are used only because it is proper, in writing, to italicize words that are in any language other than English. Aren't any other parts of the taxonomic hierarchy in Latin?
Re: why italics?
To answer this question, I thought that the most logical person to ask would be a taxonomist. So I forwarded Dr. Inouye's question to Dr. Charles D. Dondale, Honorary (= Emeritus) Curator of the Arachnid Section for the Canadian National Collection of Insects and Arachnids. Here is his answer: Answer: Taxonomists operate under a set of Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. In this little book is found the rule that generic and species names are to be written in Latin, or in words that are latinized. Many following rules specify the endings for nouns, adjectives, etc. Higher categories are not latinized, but have certain endings such as -idae for family names. Most taxonomists I know keep a copy of the rules at hand. Why do we italicize only genus and species names when presenting taxonomic information? One web site I looked at claims that By the way, the italics are used only because it is proper, in writing, to italicize words that are in any language other than English. Aren't any other parts of the taxonomic hierarchy in Latin? -- L. Brian Patrick Ph.D. candidate Department of Biological Sciences Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 USA e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why italics?
And for those who want to find the full code of Zoological nomenclature, it is online available nowadays here: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp Kim van der Linde L. Brian Patrick wrote: To answer this question, I thought that the most logical person to ask would be a taxonomist. So I forwarded Dr. Inouye's question to Dr. Charles D. Dondale, Honorary (= Emeritus) Curator of the Arachnid Section for the Canadian National Collection of Insects and Arachnids. Here is his answer: Answer: Taxonomists operate under a set of Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. In this little book is found the rule that generic and species names are to be written in Latin, or in words that are latinized. Many following rules specify the endings for nouns, adjectives, etc. Higher categories are not latinized, but have certain endings such as -idae for family names. Most taxonomists I know keep a copy of the rules at hand. Why do we italicize only genus and species names when presenting taxonomic information? One web site I looked at claims that By the way, the italics are used only because it is proper, in writing, to italicize words that are in any language other than English. Aren't any other parts of the taxonomic hierarchy in Latin? -- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
Re: why italics?
For one, they work in newspapers, not biology. Italicization is a matter of STYLE, not of substance (as is spelling or grammar). Journalists often aren't experts, and most would not know a generic name from a family name. Most readers don't give a damn whether The Scranton Times italicizes scientific names or not. While italicization is important for us, as it makes it easier for us to spot the species in manuscript text, it adds virtually nothing in terms of useful information to the general reader. When The New York Times begins publishing peer-reviewed science journals, that will be the time to take the matter up with the editors. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Curry Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:42 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: why italics? I have always thought it strange that the New York Times, supposedly one of the best newspapers in the world, has never seen fit to adopt the standard for presentation of scientific binomials (using italics) that is common throughout biology. Certainly they are capable of printing italics these days. Does anyone know why they don't use italics for binomials? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Robert L. Curry, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Villanova University 800 Lancaster Ave. Villanova PA 19085 Tel. (610) 519-6455 Fax (610) 519-7863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://oikos.villanova.edu/RLC/ Board member and Webmaster, Ornithological Council http:// www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET Council member, Wilson Ornithological Society, 2004-2007 Council member, American Ornithologists' Union, 2005-2008 Webmaster and Conservation Committee Chair, Delaware Valley Chapter - Society for Conservation Biology http://oikos.villanova.edu/SCB/ My attention was first thoroughly aroused by comparing together the various specimens ... of the mocking-thrushes -- Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle, 1845 (2nd edition)
Lecture of the Week: Part III: Is Evolution Sufficient?
Ladies and Gentlemen: The Evolutionary Biology Lecture of the Week for May 15, 2006 is now available at: http://aics-research.com/lotw/ The talks center primarily around evolutionary biology, in all of its aspects: cosmology, astronomy, planetology, geology, astrobiology, ecology, ethology, biogeography, phylogenetics and evolutionary biology itself, and are presented at a professional level, that of one scientist talking to another. All of the talks were recorded live at conferences. This week's lecture is the third of three lectures that discuss whether or not Darwinian evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain all of the phenomena we see in nature. = May 15, 2006 Part III: Is Evolution Sufficient? A Planetary Perspective on Evolution Andrew Knoll, Harvard 35 min. What does paleontology contribute to evolutionary biology? One answer is of course that paleontology provides a direct historical record of evolution, one that includes organisms such as trilobites and dinosaurs, organisms whose existence would not easily be inferred on the basis of phylogeny alone. But it does more than that. What paleontology really does is to inform us about the nature of evolution on an active planetary surface. Beginning in the 1970's, a number of paleontologists began to challenge the notion that populational genetic processes are sufficient to completely explain the evolution of life on earth, an idea most clearly spelled out by Steven Stanley's dictum, Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. Evolution is not a process that operates only through time; there exists a profound spatial component as well. As phyletic lineages increasingly better learn their environments, they simultaneously become bound to those environments. Species diversification, the evolution of complexity and the evolution of intelligence are all similar questions interwoven onto a biogeographic tapestry, governed greatly by a planet's obliquity, eccentricity, internal heat and position in its solar system. Evolutionary ecology has been slow to recognize the importance of those geographic constraints on the evolution of life on Earth, but the last two decades have seen a fundamental shift in that regard with the recognition of a new field of study, biogeography. Lomolino, Riddle and Brown write in their excellent book, Biogeography, 3rd Ed. (2006, p. 710): One of the esteemed founders of modern evolutionary theory - Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) - once told us that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' We certainly take no issue with this, but instead offer our own observation that is even more general and possibly more strident. 'Little in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology makes sense unless viewed in a geographic context'. But even this view is insufficient to fully understand the evolution of life on this planet. An active planetary surface greatly influences evolution's course, and many authors have recently argued variations of a central theme: that some degree of instability is necessary to induce episodic bursts of novelty into the evolutionary process. Static worlds, although they may not be quite dead, would at best promote an early evolutionarily homeostasis and perhaps never advance beyond a certain stage. The introduction of episodic variation need not be catastrophic to be significant. A striking example of the effect is found in a recently published evolution of the cats in Science, where falling global sea levels during the Late Miocene and Late Pliocene/Pleistocene appears to have introduced bursts of evolutionary invention into the Felidae. Correlations between lowered mean sea level and the bursts of evolutionary novelty within the diversification of the cats seem clear. It's during these epochs that previously isolated populations were free to migrate into new environments, resulting in new adaptive radiations. While these recent changes in sea level have promoted a species diversity pump, the evidence accumulated by Andy Knoll and colleagues, in a companion paper to this talk, strongly suggests that global catastrophes were essential in creating an even more profound complexity pump. Three events appear to have reset the course of life on Earth: the Permo-Triassic and Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction events, and the Snowball Earth epoch just prior to onset of the Cambrian. The trends evident in their analysis suggest that following each event, complex multicellular life on the surface of the Earth became more mobile, more independent of its physical environment and more predaceous, and thus more intelligent. Predators are by force of nature more analytical, more perceptive than their prey. As seen in the graph to the left, the half-billion year trend for complex life on this planet has been for life to become more predaceous, punctuated in
