Fwd: Re: [TAXACOM] genetic vs morphological trace of phylogeny

[Curtis Clark]

At 12:42 2004-04-12, John Grehan wrote:
>I guess I do not see these methods making the phylogeny 'cladistic' in the
>sense of Hennig, Rosa etc.

Neither cladistics nor panbiogeography has stood still, unchanged from its
original formulation. To accuse any science of that sort of stasis is harsh
condemnation.

>As Curtis has so kindly pointed out, I appear to
>be out of step with 'informed' opinion (informed being by definition the
>majority).

Although I agree with your self-characterization, that was not at all my
point. My point is that there is a vocabulary and methodology of cladistics
that you seemingly do not understand. In my opinion, it is foolish to argue
against things that are not understood, or are understood without the means
to communicate that understanding to others. (That is why you will not find
me arguing against panbiogeography.)


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062