Smart vs. wise sytematists

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Robert Mesibov
> Actually, Humphries is on record (2004 citation if you want it) as
> saying that character analysis only gives you classifications. If you
want
> phylogenetic trees, he says, you need information "beyond that
available
> for
> character analysis", and that includes biogeographical data. Not all
> contemporary cladists are afraid to get Earth on their hands.

It is possible that Humphries has changed his mind, although from the
statement above it is not clear to me if his position is the same as
considering biogeographic distributions in forming assertions about
phylogenetic affinities. 

I've found Humphries a bit ambiguous at times regarding his views
towards panbiogeography where the foundation of biogeography is spatial
rather than biological. On one hand he tries to say that cladistic
biogeography is superior to panbiogeography, on the other
panbiogeography is still a currently valid mode of analysis. This
observation reflects more on my own uncertainty about his position than
necessarily the actual consistency of his perspective (and we do agree
on quite a lot - particularly on the problematic scientific status of
Darwinian biogeography). 

The uncertainty about Humphries use of biogeographic data is that for
Humphries the biogeographic 'data' comprise homologies that are the
characters of the organisms themselves. Thus biogeography is derived
from cladograms of form relationships and to say that biogeography is
"information beyond that available for character analysis" does not seem
to apply to Humphries stated perspective. Croizat on the other hand, was
explicit about how spatial characteristics could provide information
other than biological characters to predict phylogeny (which could be
'tested' against other forms of evidence.

I do agree that Humphries is not afraid to get earth on his hands (love
the pun), but it seems to me that his earth is still subordinated to
biology.

John Grehan