[Taxacom] Intuition in taxonomy

[Thomas G. Lammers]

I concur and suggest that this post might well form the nucleus of a 
commentary to Taxon.

I have always justified traditional taxonomy as science because it tests 
hypotheses.  Classifications are hypotheses of relationships.  They 
generate predictions (e.g., :all members of this genus will fall into one 
of three subgenera).  These predictions can be tested by examining a data 
type not used in their original construction, by adding new taxa to the 
classification, or by re-evaluating old data.

At 09:32 AM 3/2/2009, Richard Zander wrote:
>Here is my argument, after some digging in a dictionary: ... In sum, the 
>classifications of apha taxonomy are not intuitive, but are inferential 
>and central.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
800 Algoma Blvd.
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and 
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=297234
http://www.kewbooks.com/asps/ShowDetails.asp?id=615
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/StaffBooks/lammers.htm
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous