paraplaying (and bullies)

[Ken Kinman]

Curtis,
       Au contraire again.  Paraphyletic groups were often schoolyard bullies in the past.  Then came the strict cladists, the new schoolyard bullies that swung the pendulum too far the other way (a reactionary elimination of ALL paraphyly).

       My recent classification of Diptera shows that the Kinman System can accomodate important intermediate taxa.  I could certainly do this for Class Reptilia as well.  My concern is how many such intermediate taxa would be optimal (resisting the cladistic temptation to keep formally oversplitting ad nauseum).   I am willing to compromise and be flexible, whereas strict cladists are the ones who insist it is their way (zero paraphyly).  I am trying to create a bigger, more flexible, sandbox that we can all share.  Otherwise, there will be a continuing battle between sandboxes that can only serve to divide us and make our work much less efficient.  If I am a bully, it is nothing compared to the bullying strict cladists have done with their inordinate control of purse-strings and editorial heavy-handedness.
               ---------- Ken Kinman
******************************************************
Curtis Clark wrote:
*Your* classification. Exactly. Paraphyletic groups are schoolyard bullies. A classification that includes Reptilia absolutely and totally precludes the formal taxonomic recognition of the clades Archosauria, Dinosauria, or Saurischia. It's your way or the highway. To me, that's not playing well with others. And it's one of the reasons why the Phylocode people want their own sandbox, since they can't play in yours, but you don't want them to have their own, either.  Because clades don't overlap, such is never a problem with classifications that only include clades.