Three great papers (cladistics; paraphyly)

[Ken Kinman]

Three Recommended papers:
     (1) Eric Knox, 1998; (2) Kent E. Carpenter, 1993; and last but not
least  (3) Ernst Mayr, 1998.
Citations and my comments below:
****************************************
     (1) "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics" by
Eric B. Knox, 1998.  Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63:1-49.
      Quoting from the abstract of this paper:  "Descent has conceptual
priority over modification, but the organizational relationship is not
exclusive.  'Cladistic classification' is an oxymoron because cladistics
lacks the class concepts needed to construct a classification, a point
recognized by those who suggest abandoning Linnaean classification in favour
of a newly devised monophyletic systematization."
      Wonderful paper, and does a lot better job of explaining this stuff
than I ever could.  It is very theoretical, but my next recommendation was
already putting some of these ideas into practice in 1993.
****************************************
     (2)  Great example of how to put good theories to good work is:
"Optimal Cladistic and Quantitative Evolutionary Classifications as
Illustrated by Fusilier Fishes (Caesionidae)" by Kent E. Carpenter, 1993
(Syst. Zool., 42:142-154).  By the way, Farris 1979 is one of the references
listed.
     Carpenter's is an excellent paper which I'm sure Ashlock would have
greatly enjoyed.  Cladogram, Multistate Character Index, Optimality
Test----just like a "real" cladist.  But he goes further and also does a
Quantitative evolutionary systematic analysis, then uses a minimal amount of
paraphyly, and produces a very optimal classification (which I would call
cladisto-eclectic).  Great paper, but I guess that little bit of paraphyly
means he isn't a "real" cladist according to Tom DiBenedetto.  Does that
mean Carpenter did all that extra work and put more information in his
classification for nothing?   Obviously not, and I think Carpenter is a
"real" optimal cladist, from whom strict cladists could perhaps learn a
thing or two.  And by the way, some of my own classifications are completely
cladistic, so I guess that make me at least a part-time "real" cladist, even
according to Tom's definition.
  ***********************************
    (3)  Having read papers by those two younger guys (one a botanist and
one a zoologist), you might want to look at it from a bacteriological
perspective from someone who is better known:
    Ernst Mayr. 1998.  "Two Empires or Three" (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
95:9720-9723).  Since Ernst named me in his acknowledgments, I guess that
makes me bias, but I think it's a great paper.
            --------Ken Kinman


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com