[Taxacom] Position Announcement

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
> surviving ancestors, and especially the now almost universal practice
> that statistical analysis of a data set can result in near statistical
> certainty while a host of assumptions remain unchallenged or
> unrecognized.

That seems to me to represent a major oversight in systematic theory.

> I note that the most recent issue of Taxon contains three letters to
the
> editor, one of them by myself, offering cogent arguments against
> ignoring (or just mapping onto molecular cladograms) morphological
data.

I'll take a look

> The remainder of the articles were largely of actual systematic
studies
> ignoring (or just mapping onto molecular cladograms) morphological
data.

What an irony!

> To make any inroads on the molecular juggernaut, we must present
actual
> systematic studies that combine information on expressed traits and
> molecular lineages in a manner that is competitive with molecular
> systematics.

What constitutes a "manner that is competitive". There is currently no
empirical foundation for combining information on expressed traits and
molecular lineages. Morphology and molecules are in total contradiction
when it comes to the living sistergroup of humans. Since the morphology
is also congruent with the fossil record (i.e. fossil hominids also show
human-orangutan apomorphies or purely orangutan features) I would argue
that it is the molecular evidence that is in doubt, not the morphology.

> molecular traits is to avoid the gimmicks of monophyly and no
surviving
> ancestors.

Please clarify the gimmicks of monophyly and no surviving ancestors

John Grehan