[Taxacom] More precise sound bite

[Kenneth Kinman]

John,
     I'll try one more time.   We can avoid the semantics by recognizing
that "cladistics" has become a two-step process (really two
methodologies).  Step one is cladistic (phylogenetic) analysis, which is
a great methodological tool (in that sense I'm a cladist).  The problems
arise with step two (strict cladism):  automatically translating the
results into a strict cladification (no paraphyly allowed).   
       Now we have Step three by the most radical strict cladists who
want step two legitimized by a new Code of Nomenclature (PhyloCode).
There is nothing inherent in step one cladistics (phylogenetic analysis)
that necessitates either step two (strict cladifications) or step three
(PhyloCode).  And my point was not that step two necessitates step three
(it clearly doesn't), but rather that step three just magnifies and
accelerates the problems caused by step two.  It's the paraphylophobia
in step two causing the problems, and step three would just make those
problems worse.  I would like systematics to go back to step one
cladistics, and then make step two a rigorous cladisto-eclectic
classification (paraphyly allowed when it adds information).
        ---------Ken