[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[Stephen Thorpe]

read Ken's posts for endless specific examples ...

>But if their higher level classification is wrong to begin with

A classification can only be wrong on the back of the phylogeny being wrong - if 
classification is kept apart from phylogeny, then the former cannot be "wrong"




________________________________
From: Kleo Pullin <kleopullin at pacbell.net>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 9:52:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)




--- On Sun, 12/19/10, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:


>
>>>Do non-cladists give only stable and conclusive results?
>>Didn't say that they did, but highest level molecular phylogenetics of life 
>seems particularly unstable and inconclusive ...
>
>Can you give an specific example of an unstable and inconclusive higher level 
>taxon? (More than one, if it's an older or brand new C-S?)
>
>Are they just inconclusive when they show we know less than we thought we knew? 
>Without a specific example, I'm not sure what's being discussed. I'd like to be 
>able to examine it and see what is going on that leads to this statement.
>
>
>
>>I expect paraphyletic groups like Protista are useful to bioinformaticians who 

>don't want to have to change their higher classification every time someone 
>publishes a new phylogeny ...
>
>
>But if their higher level classification is wrong to begin with it is. But, 
>again, do you have an example for this that I could look at?
>
>Thanks, 
>
>Kleo
>
>________________________________
>From: Kleo Pullin <kleopullin at pacbell.net>
>
>Do non-cladists give only stable and conclusive results? 
>
>And conclusive in what manner? If new molecular information, or if a new means 
>of examining physical information, changes how Linneaus classified an organism, 

>the Linnean taxonomy changes. Doesn't this show that the results were not 
>conclusive because some data were missing to begin with? So, how are taxonomic 
>relationships conclusive when they show a relationship that is based on a 
>non-cladistic relationship? An example would help me out.
>
>For the trees, I see how a finite geographic area makes only the descriptions of 
>
>the species, without their evolutionary relationships useful. On the other hand, 
>
>as soon as you expand your geographic area or your time span, isn't it useful to 
>
>know about closely related species, as in genetically related? Because, after 
>all, isn't this where you will expand your knowledge of species through space 
>and time, by looking at close genetic relationships?
>
>I can see how Protista is useful; but I was hoping some of you could tell me 
>other ways in which it is useful to you. It's useful for me when trying to 
>explain eukaryotic micro-organisms to children, particularly amoeba and 
>photosynthetic (and sometimes not) single-celled organisms that are not plants, 

>animals or fungi. Very helpful as a starting point to have this dump-all 
>category. 
>
>
>But, I would like more information from taxonomists on this list about how they 

>find using a group such as "Protista" useful in their work. 
>
>
>Also, anyone know who is classifying Rhodophyta as other than plants these 
days?
>
>Again, thanks for the response.
>
>Kleo
>
>--- On Sun, 12/19/10, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>>Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 11:57 AM
>>
>>
>>>but I am struck by the usefulness of this discussion
>>is that usefulness or convenience?
>>
>>>1) classifications are most valuable when they reflect our knowledge of 
>>>evolutionary history 
>>>
>>> Why are we attempting to classify life in the 21st century without including 

>>>our understanding of the "tree of life"?
>>
>>if cladistics gave stable and conclusive results, then all would be well, but it 
>>
>>ain't so ...
>>
>>there is no a priori reason why classification needs to follow phylogenetics ... 
>>
>>phylogeneticists can study phlogeny and leave it to taxonomists to do 
>>classification ...
>>
>>Stephe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>