Clades, cladons, and "cladifications"

[HJJACOBSON at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:39:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pierre.deleporte at UNIV-RENNES1.FR writes:

> I don't mean it is not utilizable, I mean that there are two systems. It
> cannot logically be otherwise.
>

I agree with this characterization. What I had meant say was that both types
of informantion, degree of divergence and cladistic branch topography, could
be mixed to create a classification. The problem is that the person using the
classification cannot extract the different information. She can not
reconstruct the cladogram or phenogram from just looking at the information. She may be
able to reconstruct the phenogram topology but not the degree to which each
branch diverges, and the degree (amount) of divergence is what penetic
classification is all about.

I admit that I am not familiar with Ken's methods, but I do know that he
classifies using both paraphyletic and monophyletic groups, and he uses a set of
numbers and symbols to identify them. Base on this very limited understanding
of his method (and I further admit that I'm on thin ice here), I might guess
that a taxomomist could extract the topology of the group, but not the degree
(or amount ) of divergence. And I think this was Hull's point.

Herb