cautionary tales (holophyly)

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
     I certainly wasn't indicting anyone "by association" (as Curtis put
it), otherwise I would be indicting myself as well (note that I do call
myself a "cladist" in that same post).
     I was suggesting that some cladists may well use the complexity and
confusion created by the PhyloCode to further their own careers (splitting
and priority races come to mind), at the expense of the good of the
scientific community as a whole.  Just a little cautionary tale by
extrapolating what sometimes happens in the legal profession.
     And speaking of cautionary tales, Tom Lammers has correctly pointed out
how the term "monophyletic" was commandeered by cladists in the 1960's, and
Peter Ashlock's attempt to clarify the situation with the perfectly logical
term "holophyletic" was unjustifiably rejected.  The former meaning of
"monophyly" thus became "Second-Class" and frowned upon by editors.
      To avoid such confusion, I continue to this day to use the term
holophyletic which I parenthetically qualify as (strictly monophyletic).
Ashlock finally gave up, but I have not, because to me Ashlock's taxonomic
legacy is perhaps best embodied in that one word.
      Judging from such actual events, it is very difficult to be comforted
by Philip's intentions for the PhyloCode (however good those intentions
might be).  Like it or not, some cladists will misuse the PhyloCode, and
whether they will admit it publically or not, many cladists do look forward
to replacing the Linnean System, just as they replaced the definition of
monophyletic to fit their own views and rejected Ashlock's attempts to avoid
the confusion that it inevitably caused.
                         -------Ken Kinman
*******************************************************
>From: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
>Reply-To: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: cladistics & linguistics & PhyloCode
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:24:23 -0500
>
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Curtis Clark wrote:
>
> > At 07:48 PM 10/23/00, Ken Kinman wrote:
> > >Some cladists may actually enjoy the confusion, just as some
> > >lawyers enjoy the confusion in the out-of-balance legal system.
> >
> > Why don't you name names, instead of indicting us all by association? Or
> > was that your intent?
>
>Seems to me that things are being taken too seriously.  Do I have to name
>names to say that some politicians "may be closet liberals"?  I think
>not.  The statement is qualified by "may"; Kinman did not say that that
>"some cladists do enjoy the confusion."  If he had, then it would be
>appropriate to ask to name names.
>
>Richard J. Jensen      |   E-MAIL: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
>Dept. of Biology       |   TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674
>Saint Mary's College   |   FAX: 219-284-4716
>Notre Dame, IN  46556
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.