[Taxacom] classifications (was: no subject)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
      Well, my approach is to make such phylogenies and classifications
as much alike as possible.  You can take one of my classifications and
simply draw a cladogram in the left-hand margin (the coding is just a
short-hand way of doing this).   When there is a paraphyletic break,
this produces two cladograms, but you can put these two together to
produce a single cladogram, since the {{exroup}} markers shows you where
to hook them together.  I think this is a much better approach than "us
vs. them".  But until strict cladists agree to allow occasional
paraphyletic breaks, the destabilization and arguments will continue.
Why they wouldn't want to do this really puzzles me, as it would make
all classifications more phylogenetic.  It's a simple step toward
eliminating the "us vs. them" battle that has been going on for decades.   
       -------Ken Kinman

---------------------------------------------------------
Don Colless wrote:
I asked it before and had not a single reply. Why can we not have (both)
a phylogeny AND a classification? The former to serve evolutionary
studies (sens.lat.), the latter for general (including public) use?