[Taxacom] Position Announcement

[Richard Zander]

"Gimmicks" of monophyly and no surviving ancestors are clarified in:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/Repr/Zander-Biodiversity8-2007.
pdf
also if that doesn't work try

http://tinyurl.com/27fq62 

I use the loaded word "gimmicks" to attract attention to this problem.
These are not really gimmicks. What I really mean is given in the above
paper.

R.


******************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
For FedEx and UPS use:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
******************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 7:44 AM
> To: Richard Zander; Richard Pyle; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Position Announcement
> 
> 
> > -----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
> 
>