[Taxacom] More precise sound bite

[John Grehan]

I did not compare cladistics and holocaust. I compared denial of reality
- the reality being that cladistics and phylocode have no necessary
connection. Holocaust denial is another good example of denial of
reality.
John Grehan

In asking "what else besides cladistic is phylocode linked to" the same
unreality is being propogated. The question should be, what is the
methodological basis that requires cladists to be phylocodists? If there
is none (which is what I believe) then the connection is a fiction.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:08 PM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More precise sound bite
> 
> I hardly think the comparison (cladistics and holocaust) is
appropriate or
> appreciated. Please refrain from such insensitive hyperbole.
> 
> Let me ask, what, besides cladistics, is phylocode linked to?
Phenetics?
> Evolutionary systematics?
> 
> Dick J
> 
> Richard Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 
> tel: 574-284-4674
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More precise sound bite
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I am very accommodating to our different perspectives, but when you
> persist in linking cladistics with the Phylocode you are taking too
much
> liberty with reality. To make such claims is like claiming there was
no
> holocaust.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kenneth Kinman [mailto:kennethkinman at webtv.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:51 PM
> > To: John Grehan
> > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] More precise sound bite
> >
> > John and Ronaldo,
> >        Yes, you could say that cladism is a method.  As a method of
> > analysis (phylogenetic analysis), I have no huge problems with it.
As
> a
> > method of classification (cladification), it does cause problems
when
> it
> > is carried to excess (no paraphyletic taxa allowed).  I sometimes
> prefer
> > to call myself a cladisto-eclecticist, since many eclecticists think
> of
> > "cladist" as a pejorative term (those guys that simplistically
convert
> > their phylogenetic analyses into cladifications).
> >        As for being rather obsessed with this problem, I guess I'm
> > guilty as charged.  Obsessed with a return to more common sense and
> > balance in classifications.  I just wish more people had been
obsessed
> > with blowing the whistle on financial derivatives which undermined
the
> > stability of our financial system.  Unfortunately, I don't think
> strict
> > cladists really realize how they are slowly undermining our
> > classification system (although the adoption of PhyloCode will no
> doubt
> > then make it glaringly apparent to all).
> >        ----------Ken Kinman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
>