Diskussion:Ereignisse 2013
@ Witzman, GFJ: Den Beitrag zur Tetramorium-Systematik habe ich zunächst mal in die Current events gepackt. Ob man ihn in der Systematik mit T. caespitum bzw. impurum verlinkt, oder später ganz dorthin verschiebt? - Man sollte die beiden Arten gar nicht mehr getrennt listen. Besser stattdessen "Tetramorium caespitum /impurum-Gruppe". Grüße, A. Buschinger
Ich versuche mich darum zu kuemmern, sobald ich zuhause wieder Internet habe. Witzman 08:17, 10. Mai 2006 (CEST)
- Ich habe den Artikel Tetramorium caespitum/impurum-Komplex erstellt. In ihm sind der 'Current Events'-Beitrag sowie die Inhalte der Artikel Tetramorium caespitum und Tetramorium impurum vereinigt. Die beiden zuletzt genannten Artikel habe ich mit Weiterleitungen ersetzt, ebenso ist ein Link im Artikel Systematik angebracht. Auf Dauer sollte der Absatz "Aktueller Hinweis" im neuen Artikel meiner Meinung nach vom derzeitigen "News-Stil" in einen "Artikel-Stil" umgeformt werden.
- Wie gefällt diese Lösung? Ich kann meine Änderungen natürlich jederzeit rückgängig machen (oder verbessern)... GFJ 15:28, 10. Mai 2006 (CEST)
- Ich habe nichts auszusetzen Witzman 11:22, 11. Mai 2006 (CEST)
| Dieses Thema wurde geklärt und ist somit beendet. |
Hallo GFJ: Können Sie verstehen, was Wilson sagt? Ich habe akustische Probleme, und er spricht auch normal ziemlich schwer verständlich. Vielleicht könnten Sie eine kurze Inhaltsangebe machen, englisch oder deutsch? (A. Buschinger, 27.2.07)
- Hallo Herr Buschinger,
- da kann ich Ihnen nur zustimmen: Die Ausprache ist wirklich schwer zu verstehen... Auch ich musste mir viele Stellen mehrmals anhören um den genauen Wortlaut zu erkennen, bzw. sogar andere Personen fragen (deshalb die so späte Antwort).
- Ich habe den gesamten Text aufgeschrieben, da eine Inhaltsangabe möglichweise einige Informationen verschlucken würde. Drei Wörter/Satzteile sind mir nach wie vor unklar, ich habe sie mit [?] gekennzeichnet; der Rest meiner Mitschrift sollte inzwischen aber korrekt sein.
- Viele Grüße, Gregor Jeßberger
Every kid has a bug period, it's usually between 8 and 12. I never grew out of mine. Ants came early because they're everywhere. I so loved chasing butterflies and looking at anthills, that this is what I was going to do the rest of my life. And somehow it just fell in place that that was what I was able to do. When I was doing the gigantic monograph of the ant genus Pheidole, and that's when I covered 624 species, after you've done several hundred, one ant does not look like - when you've seen one ant you have not seen them all and you realize you become very good at telling an ant - one ant from another. You know, the line of the back of the head, or the length of the head, whether there's a spine here or not. You can very soon decide whether that species is in your portfolio or whether it's probably a new species.
So this is the way it looks, the finished collection. And each species in theory has it's own tray. Type-specimens are the ones that have red labels, and those are the ones that are the absolute, final reference of the species. There isn't any real typical specimen, but it's somewhere on average looking. And then you say, I ran there without a holotype and you wave your one over it and then you got your type specimen.
I write by pen on yellow lined paper and I have never written any other way and I never will write any other way. Even if it's a short trip to New York, I'm writing the entire time. And I, when it comes to, you know, getting my writing instruments out, I'm the quickest draw on the play. I can be out and writing long before these others have got their laptop powered up. The holy instrument, you know, sort of like a stone, flint knife and actually, be creating the words, you know with an instrument, has a tactile pleasure.
Although I don't have the belief, now, my childhood was deep in it, so, you know, like most southern riders who move north, I want to see if I can go home. There is a common interest in saving the creation. If I tried to proselytize at the same time I was trying to enlist, then I would be mixing my purpose and I would loose, I believe, any credibility I have. I did have this fear that this was not what scientists should be doing. And I thought, at that time, an organisation like the World Wildlife Fund [WWF] were probably doing far better than I could at any thing like that. So I'd leave it to them, and then, the role of the scientist would be to provide information that they could use. And I discovered they needed a lot more information, and they needed the direct involvement of scientists. So, in the early 80's, I was on the board of the World Wildlife Fund.
I cannot memorise anything. Not one line of poetry without enormous effort, I once took hours while I was trying to fall asleep to memorize the national anthem, now I still mess it up. I lived in fear of being called on when I was in High School, of being in a play, because I knew that I couldn't do anything better than holding a spear, and even then I'd probably forget where to stand. I think it's genetic, you know, the inability to memorize anything. But now I've made that confession, what it does is, you might say, is the whole of me down to reality.
Oh, well that would have to be probably social biology. Social biology is a discipline. Meaning, that it is the systematic study of the biological bases of all forms of social behavior in all organisms. Communication, bonding, the size / the structure of a society, division of labor and everything else of the social biology, with especial reference to it's biological foundation. The subject became very controversial, it became in the public eye a belief that human beings are genetically determined. That's not what it is. It says that in fact, as far as humans are concerned, there is such a thing as human nature.
In the 1970's, it was the general belief of the social scientist that the mind is a blank slate, of remarkable circumstances in electional history. Anthropologists, most sociologists, probably all, political scientists, probably most of all, believed that the brain was a blank slate. And, that's stunning, it's a dogma. And one of the reasons it became a dogma was that it was thought that anything else would lead to racism. When it finally was decided that human nature does have genetic bases and there is such a thing as human nature, the sky didn't fall down after all.
I was certain that I was right - I mean, I had the evidence. Just as we say to the creationist, we have the fossils, we win. I had the evidence, the evidence was very strong. The ideological origins of the very veomonotax [?] were obvious and it does comfort, I felt, sure, it was descalant contrive [?], so I was mostly a little afraid of my reputation. But in this comfort I felt shrinks to nothing in my mind when I think of how it was for scientists in Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union. I got maybe a few unfavorable reviews in the New York Review of Book, they got killed. There is the constant deep satisfaction of knowing that what you've learned and what others like you have learned, if it fits together, is a part of the world in which you live now understood and to some degree manageable. We no longer - we live a little bit less in, using Karl Seigons [?] phrase, a demon-haunted world. A little bit of light is shed, you know, there are fewer demons.
- GFJ 18:21, 7. Mär 2007 (CET)