cladistics vs. cladism

[Ken Kinman]

To Jeff and other TAXACOMERS:
      Although the distinction is not always clearly made, there is a
big difference between cladistics as a tool (cladistic analysis) and
cladistics gone too far (cladism as a way of life).
      I haven't read Dr. Zander's article yet, but another recent,
excellent article on the problems inherent in strictly cladistic
classifications is by Eric B. Knox (1998; The uses of hierarchies as
organizational models in systematics; Biological Journal of the Linnean
Society 63:1-49).  I recommend it highly.
      For what it's worth, I wrote a short piece dealing with this
subject back in March 1996.  It was written when I was much more
pessimistic about ending the 30-year war between cladists and
eclecticists.  I am now encouraged by the increasing tendency of the
"silent majority" of biologists to challenge unbridled cladism in
published papers.  Anyway, my thoughts in 1996 were as follows:
******************************************************
*****Journal of MetaBioSystematics No. 5 (March 1996).
Title:  Reversing Unbridled Cladism's Perversion of Biosystematics With
A Universally Acceptable Bioclassification Approach (Can The Kinman
System Surmount The Barriers?).
     As was stated in the preface to the book which introduced "The
Kinman System" (1994)**, I was (in the mid-1970's) torn between cladism
and traditional eclecticism, since each presented both advantages and
disadvantages.  The only logical solution at that time (and this still
holds true today) was to create a new system combining the strengths of
each, and I developed the Kinman System in the latter 1970's.
     In 1979 ("The Limits of Cladisms"; Syst. Zool., 28:437), David Hull
(a science philosopher) stated that "no methods have been set out thus
far which permits the inclusion of both sorts of information [genealogy
and divergence] in a single classification in such a way that both are
retrievable."  Although my methodologies had already been devised to do
precisely that, it was completely overshadowed by an overwhelming wave
of cladistic fervor which displayed an irrational aversion which I
prefer to call "paraphylophobia".  Paraphyletic groups (such as retiles,
which should be recognized because they are natural groups) were so
reviled that the meaning of monophyly was restricted to the exclusion of
paraphyly.  Although eclecticists introduced the term holophyly (for
monophyly sensu stricto) in order to preserve monophyly's original
meaning (sensu lato), it was largely ignored and the term monophyletic
is now meaningless (and often deceptive) when it is used without
qualification.
     It is unfortunate that the unbridled use of cladistics compromised
its own effectiveness.  Being a tool, it should serve us, not tie our
hands.  However, to many it was no longer just a tool, but became a
restrictive, narrow way of thinking (or even a way of life).  This set
the stage for a disastrous series of errors in bacteriology (as one
example), now two decades long, and recently I finally felt compelled to
publicly challenge the Three Domain Theory as severely detrimental to
bacterial systematics (vitally important medically and economically) and
to all the sciences that depend on accurate biological phylogenies
(Journal of MetaBioSystematics, 1:1-2).  Molecular systematics hold
great promise in solving previously intractable evolutionary problems,
but even with complete and perfect genetic data sets, computers would
still often spew out "garbage" as long as false assumptions and flawed
reasoning contaminate the processing of the data.
     My greatest frustration has been encountering a great deal of
apathy (or stubborn entrenchment) in even recognizing that there is a
problem, much less do anything about it.  For those caught up in the
excitement of powerful analytical tools, perhaps a reminder is in order.
These fields are at best in their early adolescence, and at such an
immature stage, love (and worse yet infatuation) can blind one to the
pitfalls that would otherwise be readily apparent.
     The higher up the taxonomic hierarchy one goes, the worse these
problems become qualitatively (but quantitatively worse at lower
taxonomic levels).  Unbridled cladism has so perverted biological
classifications that many are abandoning taxonomic categories
altogether.  Metabiosystematic debates appear to many to be a confusing
mixture of babbling and/or rabble-rousing verbiage (or even
jabberwocky), and I very much worry that my own protestations might be
viewed in the same light.  It truly grieves me that the first
comprehensive cladisto-eclectic approach to classification may continue
to fall victim to the skepticism and apathy (among both eclecticists and
cladists) generated and fed by the excesses of cladism.  The Kinman
System is far more than a compromise solution.  It is a synergistic
union of cladistic and eclectic methodologies, providing a unique and
powerful system that can make classifications simultaneously more stable
and more informative (goals previously considered imcompatible).  I
believe it is maximally heuristic and the only logical remedy to the
current sad state of affairs in metabiosystematics.
                                          Kenneth E. Kinman
                                          P.O. Box 1377
                                          Hays, Kansas  67601-8377
**Bibliograpic information on the 1994 book, "The Kinman System: Toward
A Stable Cladisto-Eclectic Classification of Organisms (Living and
Extinct; 48 Phyla, 269 Classes, 1,719 Orders)", can be found on the OCLC
or WorldCat databases of the Library of Congress.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com