[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[John Grehan]

 Maarten Christenhusz wrote:
2. With phylogenies it should be attempted to include as many type
species as possible, and genera should be tested for monophyly on
multiple genes, and new taxonomy based on molecular studies, should also
have a morphological basis, since we can not check the genes when we are
in the field.

Here's the rub. When the two sources contradict each other completely
what is the phylogenetic and evolutionary meaning? As far as I can tell
there is no objective recipe for the answer. My own current inclination
is to place more emphasis on morphology if that morphology is strongly
corroborated since molecular approaches are fraught with phenetic
methodologies that obfuscate true apmorphies (for example the alignment
process introduces an entirely artificial and imaginary process into
base homology). But that's just my personal opinion. Others have
different opinions, but there appears to be a lack of some sort of
scientific, as opposed to ideological, resolution in modern systematic
theory. So in general most systematists either pretend the problem does
not exist by assuming faith in molecules or lumping everything together
based on some philosophical idealism.

John Grehan