Taxa, individuals, clusters and a few other things

The recognition of species proceeds by two fairly distinct phases: (1) the sorting of individuals into groups or basic taxa (‘discovery’) (2) the checking of those taxa as candidates for species-hood (‘justification’). The target here is a rational reconstruction of phase 1, beginning with a discussion of key terms. The transmission of ‘meaning’ is regarded as bimodal: definition states the intension of the term, and diagnosis provides a disjunction of criteria for recognition of its extension. The two are connected by a spectrum, with purely theoretical definition at one pole and purely ‘operational’ diagnosis at the other, with the more operational elements explained by the more theoretical. The current plethora of species concepts provides a good example. Accepting the Ghiselin–Hull thesis, that a species is an individual, a basic taxon is therefore also an individual with organisms as its parts. In a generalised synchronic individual its parts are conceptually integrated by an integrating principle (IP), which consists of a relation applying within a plan or rule. Fully developed, such an IP ensures the maximisation of the information content of the individual. A diachronic individual is then the set of its component synchronic parts, and its IP is provided by near-identity in an appropriate space-time (not necessarily physical). The integration of parts of an individual is illuminated by Gasking's concept of a proper group (in this case a chain-group), whose members are related by the relation serially fitting together with, the IP completed by an appropriate plan or rule. Gasking also applied the term cluster to a proper group persisting over a substantial period of time, individuated by any member acting as focus. A basic taxon is therefore a cluster of individuals, integrated by the relation significantly taxonomically similar and the rule in character-space-time. The nature of those concepts is discussed and defended. A species will inherit certain of the attributes of the preceding basic taxon (taxa). In at least the synchronic version its parts (individuals) will resemble each other significantly, providing the intuitive applicability of ‘members of’ and ‘instances of’ a species. Also, the notion that a species’ name is given by pure ostension, via a name-bearer (holotype) is empirically incoherent: the name cannot be applied in practice without an appropriate set of diagnostic traits.     

How to start a biotech company

The spirit of life science entrepreneurship is alive and well, with outstanding innovation hubs arising throughout the country and the world. Of note, many of these hubs flourish in close proximity to research universities. If universities are the engine for discovery, then startups are the vehicle for innovation. The creativity and drive of young researchers has the potential to explore novel or underserved applications and revolutionize industries.     

Intellectual Property: a powerful tool to develop biotech research

Today biotechnology is perhaps the most important technology field because of the strong health and food implications. However, due to the nature of said technology, there is the need of a huge amount of investments to sustain the experimentation costs. Consequently, investors aim to safeguard as much as possible their investments. Intellectual Property, and in particular patents, has been demonstrated to actually constitute a powerful tool to help them. Moreover, patents represent an extremely important means to disclose biotechnology inventions. Patentable biotechnology inventions involve products as nucleotide and amino acid sequences, microorganisms, processes or methods for modifying said products, uses for the manufacture of medicaments, etc. There are several ways to protect inventions, but all follow the three main patentability requirements: novelty, inventive step and industrial application.     

Introduced ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of mainland France and Belgium,with a focus on greenhouses

The monitoring of introduced species is becoming more important as global trade intensifies. Although ants make up a larger proportion of species on the list of the most invasive species in the world compared with other groups, little is known about the occurrence of those introduced in France, especially inside heated buildings. Here we review the literature available for mainland France and Belgium and report the results of a survey conducted with the help of tropical building managers between 2014 and 2016. We report for the first time in France the presence of Technomyrmex vitiensis and Plagiolepis alluaudi in multiple greenhouses. Technomyrmex difficilis was also found in one greenhouse for the first time in Europe. The diversity of introduced ants in greenhouses is very low, and these buildings are most often dominated by one or two species. We compared the most recent data and those collected throughout the twentieth century and showed that ant communities have changed substantially. Greenhouses could be responsible for the introduction of invasive species because they regularly import exotic plants, but we found no evidence that the three species of invasive ants present outdoors in France were introduced from greenhouses, where they rarely occur. We also report that introduced ants are pests in greenhouses because they disperse scale insects and kill biological control agents. The suppression of these ants could ease the maintenance of plants inside greenhouses.