829
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_96
Chapter 96
The Phylogenetic Conundrum
96.1 The Ancestries of Individualism
In a persuasive open-access research paper, scientists recently explored a brilliant
insight: “The question thus arises whether the conservatism of these features, influencing which species occur in a given place, scales up to ensemble-level properties,
influencing how many species of a clade can coexist.”
1
Amid a teeming biological
framework, focal organisms of the study comprised “14 lichens, 9 insect, and 9
avian families” in the Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain
2
and it is of course
noteworthy that the taxa were assessed at their Family levels, where, the authors
of the research paper contend, deep-time, greatly expanded “evolutionary innovations” are likely to occur.
3
Life history studies that were scaled “to higher levels
than aggregated individual traits”
4
follow poignantly upon the earlier inferenced
Samavasarana, a community of diverse traits allied in those parliaments of species that have galvanized world iconography across every known ethical expanse
of experiential biosemiotics and the so-called phylogenetic signals (“common
ancestries”).
5
Traits to semions; semions to summons, to ethical incitement, to activist ordination. If this is the outcome of continuing phylogenetics, then we see how nature/
nurture/nature is the product of not merely random, but intentional selection. It
comports with sēmeiōtikos, the observance of signs. Observation reconfirms the
1 Laiolo, P., Pato, J., Jiménez-Alfaro, B. et al. Evolutionary conservation of within-family biodiversity patterns. Nat Commun 11, 882 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14720-3. Received
24 May 2019, Accepted 29 January 2020, Published 14 February 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-14720-3, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14720-3#citeas, Accessed
February 14, 2020.
2 ibid., from Results.
3 ibid., in Discussion.
4 ibid., from Introduction.
5 ibid.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_96
Chapter 96
The Phylogenetic Conundrum
96.1 The Ancestries of Individualism
In a persuasive open-access research paper, scientists recently explored a brilliant
insight: “The question thus arises whether the conservatism of these features, influencing which species occur in a given place, scales up to ensemble-level properties,
influencing how many species of a clade can coexist.”
1
Amid a teeming biological
framework, focal organisms of the study comprised “14 lichens, 9 insect, and 9
avian families” in the Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain
2
and it is of course
noteworthy that the taxa were assessed at their Family levels, where, the authors
of the research paper contend, deep-time, greatly expanded “evolutionary innovations” are likely to occur.
3
Life history studies that were scaled “to higher levels
than aggregated individual traits”
4
follow poignantly upon the earlier inferenced
Samavasarana, a community of diverse traits allied in those parliaments of species that have galvanized world iconography across every known ethical expanse
of experiential biosemiotics and the so-called phylogenetic signals (“common
ancestries”).
5
Traits to semions; semions to summons, to ethical incitement, to activist ordination. If this is the outcome of continuing phylogenetics, then we see how nature/
nurture/nature is the product of not merely random, but intentional selection. It
comports with sēmeiōtikos, the observance of signs. Observation reconfirms the
1 Laiolo, P., Pato, J., Jiménez-Alfaro, B. et al. Evolutionary conservation of within-family biodiversity patterns. Nat Commun 11, 882 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14720-3. Received
24 May 2019, Accepted 29 January 2020, Published 14 February 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-14720-3, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14720-3#citeas, Accessed
February 14, 2020.
2 ibid., from Results.
3 ibid., in Discussion.
4 ibid., from Introduction.
5 ibid.