Paraphyly and names

[Ken Kinman]

     What I would like to know is what phylogenetic information a strictly
cladistic classification has that my Kinman System classifications don't?
     The only difference is that my classifications not only store the
cladistic information, but also eclectic information as well.
     Therefore my classifications have at least as much predictive power (if
not more), and it doesn't have all those drawbacks.  What more could you ask
for?
         --- Puzzled,
                 Ken Kinman
P.S.  And all that stuff I typed about paraphyly being as real as (if not
more real than) Hennig's cladistic conventions----  I swear that must have
gone through one ear and out the other of more strict cladists than I care
to admit. Unbelievable.
               ----  TGIF.

****************************************
>From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at YAHOO.COM>
>Reply-To: Barry Roth <barry_roth at YAHOO.COM>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Paraphyly and names
>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:21:44 -0800
>
>Richard Pyle <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> wrote:
> >> If, e.g., we have a pectinate cladogram of species A,B,C,D,E and clades
> >> A+B and A+B+C+D are supported by many synapomorphies, we will gain the
> >> most informative taxa by grouping ((A+B)+(C+D))+E.
> >> ***********
> >> That depends on what kind of information you wish to represent.
> >> If you wish
> >> to deliver information about the history of the taxa, then no, your
> >> formulation is not more informative. If you wish to make some general
> >> subjective comment about the extent to which different groupings
> >> of species
> >> might resemble each other, then sure, your arrangement might work.
> >
> >BINGO!!!! You've just beautifully stated the point I have been trying to
> >make all along!
>
>Then I guess it still needs to be asked:  what is the point of doing the
>latter, except for trivial reasons (e.g., all soft-bodied taxa need to be
>stored in alcohol rather than on pins or in trays, etc.)?  I'm not sure why
>I would make a taxonomy unless I expected to get more out of it than I put
>into it.  It should have a predictive basis.  And because of the fact of
>organic evolution, the taxonomy that stands the best chance of making
>accurate predictions about the distribution of not-yet-analyzed or
>-discovered characters is the one most grounded in phylogeny.
>
>Barry Roth
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings.


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com