首页> 外文OA文献 >In the Eye of the Cyclops: The Classic Case of Cospeciation and Why Paradigms Are Important
【2h】

In the Eye of the Cyclops: The Classic Case of Cospeciation and Why Paradigms Are Important

机译:在独眼巨人的眼中:经典的宇宙观和为什么范式是重要的

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Scientific disagreements due to empirical problems—not enough data, not enough of the critical type of data, problems in analyzing the data—are generally short-lived and resolved in the next cycle of data production. Such disagreements are thus transitory in nature. Persistent scientific conflicts, on the other hand, do not necessarily mean some facts are correct and some are wrong, nor do they mean that we do not have enough information. More often, such persistent conflicts mean that the conceptual frameworks used by different groups of researchers are insufficient to resolve apparent conflicts in the data. The latter seems to be the case with persistent disagreements about the phenomenon of cospeciation, wherein there has historically been no framework that allows us to understand speciation by host switching when the host and parasite lineages involved are of equal ages. This situation can now be resolved with the emergence of what has become known as the ‘‘Stockholm Paradigm.’’ In short, re-examination of what has been dubbed the ‘‘classic case of cospeciation’’ shows that divergent views of cospeciation are subsumed and reconciled within the larger explanatory framework of the Stockholm Paradigm. The implications are considerable, given the need to have a fundamental understanding of faunal structure, assembly, and distribution in addition to an understanding of the historical and evolutionary drivers of diversity within the current arena of accelerating environmental change, ecological perturbation, and emerging infectious diseases.
机译:由于经验问题(数据不足,关键数据类型不足,分析数据时遇到的问题)而引起的科学分歧通常会在下一个数据生产周期中暂时消失并得到解决。因此,这种分歧本质上是暂时的。另一方面,持久的科学冲突并不一定意味着有些事实是正确的,有些是错误的,也不意味着我们没有足够的信息。通常,这种持续的冲突意味着不同研究人员群体使用的概念框架不足以解决数据中的明显冲突。后者似乎在关于同种形成现象的持久分歧上是这样的,其中历史上没有一个框架可以让我们在所涉及的宿主和寄生虫世袭年龄相等时通过宿主转换来了解物种形成。现在,可以通过出现所谓的“斯德哥尔摩范式”来解决这种情况。简言之,重新审视被称为“共同合作的经典案例”的情况表明,人们对共同合作的观点分歧很大。在斯德哥尔摩范式的更大的解释框架内被纳入和调和。考虑到除了对加速环境变化,生态扰动和新发传染病的当前舞台上的多样性的历史和进化驱动力的理解外,考虑到对动物的结构,组装和分布的基本了解,这意味着很大的影响。 。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号