Taxonomic hypothesis-testing

[Joe Laferriere]

> Date:    Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:18:07 -0500
> From:    Peter Fritsch <fritschp at ACPUB.DUKE.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Taxonomy is science
>
> There is a critical difference between "results" and "conclusions."  As a
> competent scientist, the Vulcan can obtain the same results as the
> Earthling but come to completely contrary conclusions depending on the
> criteria used to make those conclusions.  An easy example is "null
> hypothesis = a, alternative hypothesis = b."  If the Vulcan chooses level
> 0.05 for the test statistic to reject the null, while the Vulcan chooses
> level 0.1, they will have come to contrary conclusions with equivalent data
> sets.  This is an integral part of the scientific method.
>
> In this sense, taxonomy is a science:  in a well-done taxonomic study,
> hypotheses are being put forth, criteria for rejection of those hypostheses
> are expostulated, data are presented, and conclusions derived from the data
> made on the basis of those criteria.
>
So, then, let me see if I get this straight. If a taxonomist is trying to
decidee whether two species should be placed in the same genus or not,
s/he sets up alternative hyoptheses:

H1: The species are congeneric, vs.

H0: The species are not congeneric.

S/he then sets up an experiment to test whether s/he can demonstrate one
hypothesis or the other with 95% confidence. Do I have this right? I have
never seen any taxonomist do anything of the sort. Whether a classicalist
examining dusty old herbarium specimens with a hand-lens, or a cladist
producing computer-generated tree diagrams, it still always comes down to
a question of personal judgment as whether to call a given monophyletic
group one genus [familiy, order, etc.] or more than one. There is no
universal consensus whatsoever on how to do this.