[Taxacom] Phylogenetic game
Richard Zander
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Mon Dec 13 13:34:06 CST 2010
I think we are both wrong, John. Nested parentheses are tricky.
Your suggestion (a(b,c))... is close but does not indicate that a and b are progenitor-descendant.
Anybody have a suggestion how to include information in a cladogram that one branch of a tree is a surviving progenitor line? Particularly this case?

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:21 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game
Huh? If b and c are both strains of brown bears would it not be that b and c go together, then a? (a (b,c)).
If the polar bear "budded off" on of the brown bear lineages (e.g.b) then would not the cladistic formulation be (a,b)c
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Zander
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:14 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game
On paraphyly, suppose
a = polar bear
b = brown bear molecular strain 1
c = brown bear molecular strain 2
A strict cladist would say "((a,b)c) . . .
A loose cladist would say (but not in print) ((a)b)c...
An evolutionary systematist would say "the polar bear line apparently budded off one of the brown bear lineages."
The first two are structuralist patterns from which we deduce evolution of traits.
The last is a scientific theory, which is well supported by data not in the cladistic data set.
The first two allow theorems to be deduced about "evolution" of traits.
The last allows well-informed guesses or theories that fit in well with other theories about the evolution of taxa following descent with modification.
Given the cant of the last 30 years, it is very difficult get out of "tree-thinking" limited to clades (leaves) and also think about caules (stems).

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:52 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game
I guess one might label paraphyleticists as strict,something,
(traditionalists?) as well. I'm not sure I can see how anyone labeled as
a cladist is also a supporter of paraphyly as I thought the two were
operationally incongruent.
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:04 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game
Hi John,
All specimens that we study are extant specimens. This is also
true of fossil specimens---the specimens are extant, although the
species may be extinct. At least I'm pretty sure that was Richard's
meaning.
And yes, you are definitely a cladist (like me), and in my opinion
a "strict" cladist (not like me). Anyone who supports cladifying the
paraphyletic family Pongidae (not only splitting it, but different
strict cladists splitting it in different ways), is in my opinion a
strict cladist. I won't use the word extreme, because some strict
cladists are more extreme than others.
---------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote:
I'm confused by the restriction of cladistics to extant specimens.
Does the inclusion of fossils mean that the method is no longer
cladistic?
I'm also confused by the absence 'of a theory of evolution of the groups
involved' Hennig (and Rosa I think) postulated an unequal divergence
from the ancestor. One can implement cladistics without caring either
way, but that would seem to be true of phenetics or any other clustering
method.
"the pattern of evidence is never used by sadists to create a theory of
evolution of the groups involved." Meaning what? Please give an example
of a non-cladistic method of systematics that does this.
On the bear speculations - it would seem that could be applied to any
theory of relationship, cladistic or not.
On paraphyly - I respectfully disagree. Some people are ok with
paraphyletic groups, others are not. So why lose sleep over it? Heck,
only a handful think that morphological evidence can potentially falsify
molecular evidence. But there's no point in castigating anyone for that.
John Grehan (a cladist according to some, an extreme cladist according
to some, a Hennigian cladists according to some, a non-cladist according
to some).
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list