[Taxacom] More precise sound bite

[Richard Zander]

I think Darwin focused on ancestor-descendant evolution, not phylogenetic evolution (sister-group evolution). His famous Tree of Life is clearly an ancestor-descendant diagram. I think the best classification is one strongly grounded in both ancestor-descendant and sister-group evaluations of evolution.
 
I use a classification to indicate names for taxa that I think others would find value in using, what their general evolutionary relationships are (similarity plus avoiding convergence), and which are unique directions in evolution (indicated by rank).
 
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
 

________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Barry Roth
Sent: Fri 3/27/2009 11:45 PM
To: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More precise sound bite



I'm not sure why I would want to make a classification unless I thought I could get something more out of it than what I put into it.*  And I think this boils down to predictivity.  Because of the fact of organic evolution, the classification that best serves this need / desire will be one strongly grounded in phylogeny.  As Darwin long ago pointed out.  This also makes me more look charitably on monophyletic (i.e., holophyletic) groups than paraphyletic groups.
 
*Ruling out purely aesthetic considerations.  Early in my career as a museum scientist, I did love it when a drawer of specimens was all neatly curated, and a notebook page of taxon names likewise.  You have to get it out of your system ...
 
Barry Roth