[Taxacom] (no subject)

[Mario Blanco]

Richard,
what you (and other people) see as a "problem" (phylogenetic 
classification) is viewed as a "solution" by others, including me. So, 
your "fixes" (return to a traditional, non-phylogenetic classification) 
will become our "problems", which then we will try to "fix". It all 
depends on your viewpoint. Even among "traditional" taxonomists there 
are competing classifications for certain groups (and the same is true 
for phylogenetic taxonomists).

It is going to be like this probably for the rest of our lifetimes and 
even beyond. That is why I don't think there will ever be a single, 
universally accepted classification. And this discussion will go on and 
on until everyone realizes this point. Which is unlikely, I know.

-----------------------------
Mario A. Blanco
Department of Biology
University of Florida
227 Bartram Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-8526
-----------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: [Taxacom] (no subject)
Date:     Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:20:04 -0500
From:     Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
To:     Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>, <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
CC:     taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Well, there's a problem with the dichotomy, Jim. There are three 
classifications, a traditional one based on morphology (expressed 
traits, anyway), a phylogenetic one based on a combination of morphology 
and phylogeny, and the phylocode.
 
The trouble is that the phylogenetic one is gradually being changed more 
and more into a purely sister-group classification and the phylogenetic 
one is replacing the morphological one rapidly. "Them" is now "us."
 
To fix this requires an evaluation of phylogenetic classification (e.g. 
APGII), and if the phylogenetic classification does not truly represent 
what we feel is the best way to present an evolutionarily based 
classification, then to publish an alternative in the field of one's 
expertise. Otherwise there will be a true dichotomy, a complely 
phylogenetic (holophyletic) classification and the phylocode. If we want 
anything else, we must do the work and present it in the marketplace of 
ideas with a thorogoing justification.
 
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Jim Croft
Sent: Wed 4/1/2009 11:59 PM
To: Don.Colless at csiro.au
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] (no subject)


But we do...  one is used by 'us'... and the other is used by 'them'...

jim