[Taxacom] Pteridophyta

[Stephen Thorpe]

[Peter] As a "scientist", my classifications are for my peers, and why  
I should worry about what are au fond folk classifications I have  
never understood

[reply] Well, a good case could be made for thinking of science as a  
service industry to non-scientists (who may be managers and/or  
funders, in addition to the revolting peasants!). Otherwise, what's  
the point in science for scientists? I would think that most  
scientists would quite like to reach a greater audience, and address  
issues and concepts that non-scientists can understand and care about.  
I can just imagine a potential funder saying "well they say that they  
have clarified the basal phylogeny of metazoans in the last funding  
round, which sounds good, but what the heck is a metazoan anyway???"...

S

Quoting Peter Stevens <peter.stevens at mobot.org>:

> Curious discussion... I don't think paraphyletic groups are
> meaningless; they often tell you a lot about evolution if you look at
> characters at the nodes/along the internodes (e.g. ANITA grade in
> angiosperms).  Naming is a separate issue. One can extract all sorts
> of information from phylogenies if you do not get hung up over
> classifications.  But pteridophytes are curious; I always think first
> of ferns when somebody says "pteridophytes" (cf. Wikipedia), and they
> would be monophyletic f the include the assemblage of taxa that they
> have recently incorporated - Psilotum, Equisetum, etc.  Ultimately it
> is well supported trees that matter, or an understanding of why there
> is poor support and/or conflict, and oodles of lovely morphology s.l.
>
> To invoke the great unwashed out there - a.k.a. Google - is a
> difficult one.  As a "scientist", my classifications are for my
> peers, and why I should worry about what are au fond folk
> classifications I have never understood. There may be things of
> interest in them, but they have their own particular spheres of
> applicability.  Also, I am a firm believer in the ultimate
> educability of "the public", even if it happens only gradually;
> Google is mapping the present and the past, but we may reasonably
> think of a future.  We have found out so much over the last thirty
> years or so, with the possibility of thinking in new (to most of us)
> conceptual frameworks, that changes will inevitably be in order
> (please, I do not want to hear about what people of
> moderation/"sensible"people might do). End of sermon!
>
> And who is to say what is hogwash and propaganda? I might think that
> of some of the pronouncements of the evolutionary school, and there
> is indeed h. & p. by taxonomists of all persuasions out there, but it
> does little for understanding to try and tar what you think of as
> your opponents with it - even with the caveat "strictly cladistic".
>
> p.
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>       Phylogenetically the taxon Phylum Pteridophyta is indeed not a
>> single clade, but to call it "meaningless" just because it is
>> paraphyletic is frankly just another case of strictly cladistic
>> hogwash
>> and propaganda.  You call people wrong to consider Pteridophyta a good
>> taxon in which to express their interest.  But those "heaps of people"
>> would consider you equally wrong in criticizing them for studying a
>> paraphyletic taxon just because it happens to exclude that taxon's
>> spermatophyte descendants.
>>        Consider the fact that before spermatophytes evolved,
>> pteridophytes were the only tracheophytes in existence.  In other
>> words,
>> pteridophytes were a clade before one of them happened to give rise to
>> spermatophytes.  Therefore it is hardly a meaningless taxon.  It is
>> really no different than criticizing people who specialize in studying
>> reptiles just because Reptilia happens to be paraphyletic.
>>         --------Ken Kinman
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jim Croft wrote:
>> There are heaps of people around the world who profess an interest in
>> 'pteridophytes', even 'Pteridophyta'.  Even though based on compelling
>> evidence, it seems to be phylogenetically quite meaningless, dare I
>> say
>> 'wrong', to do so.  But, as a concept it is meaningful to them in
>> their
>> context.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
>> of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/
>> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.