Assumptions and reliability of solutions

[Richard Jensen]

I disagree with Lyn's comment.  A number of cladistic studies (in the
early days of cladistics) reaffirmed what was already hypothesized.
Besides, if there has been no formal cladistic study of a group, I think a
carefully prepared study that reaffirmed the earlier classification would
be a welcome addition to the literature.  I would be very interested in a
paper titled "Phylogenetic relationships among certain composites: Art was
right!"

Cheers,

Dick

Lyn.Craven at CSIRO.AU wrote:

> Career-wise, it does not help a young scientist starting out to find
> that the person who last revised the group got it right.   Publishing
> affirmations does not earn the same brownie points in our flawed
> science-comunication process.  Career-wise, it is best to show that
> everyone else was/is wrong and the world must now march to a new
> tune...............
>
> Lyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of E. Parmasto
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:41 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Assumptions and reliability of solutions
>
> Richard Zander:
> > The difference between a cladist and a non-cladist can be summarized
> > in the following manner:
>    etc., &c.
>
> For me, the main difference is that probability /
> reliability of the results of a cladistic study
> (phylogenetic trees, resulting classifications, etc.)
> may be somehow measured / characterized. What
> about reliability of the results of a non-cladistic
> study? Are there any good methods to evaluate the
> probability of phylogenetic constructions /
> hypotheses made by non-cladists (not including
> pheneticists) ?
> Erast Parmasto
> ******************

--
Richard J. Jensen              | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology      | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         | e-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556    | http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen