[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Sun Dec 19 19:40:58 CST 2010

I thought my meaning was clear enough, but obviously not ...

I meant that if you think of a classification as just "a way to cut up the 
cake", then no way is "the correct way", and no way is "wrong"

to push this analogy a bit further, systematists often try so hard to cut the 
cake up "the correct way" that they just end up biting off more than they can 
chew ...

to return to the main point of all this, paraphyletic residues are not as big a 
problem as the instability typically caused by attempts to eliminate them ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: kleopullin at pacbell.net; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 2:27:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Hi Stephen,

There are numerous ways a classification system can be wrong, of course, e.g. a 
classification of capital cities by countries which includes cities or countries 
that do not exist, or are misspelled, or are cities but not capital cities, or 
have incorrect country (i.e. parent-child) allocations, plus other ways. (These 
would be wrong because they can be contradicted by comparison with directly 
observable facts, or with other sources deemed authoritative or generally 
accepted by some criterion). Classifications can also have internal logical 
inconsistencies too e.g. same item appearing multiple times in different places 
when this is not conceptually a part of the hierarchy model, etc. etc. Just in 
case this helps (probably doesn't).

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kleo Pullin
> Sent: Monday, 20 December 2010 12:18 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Stephen Thorpe
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> 
> No, a classification system to organize all library books that excluded
> science and biography in a system with science and biography books would
> be wrong. A classification isn't correct, just because it's a
> classification. Classifications have purposes.
> 
> I'm going to now withdraw from the conversation. I was trying to
> understand the discussion, a few issues in particular.
> 
> Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond.
> 
> Kleo
> 
> --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> To: "Kleo Pullin" <kleopullin at pacbell.net>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 5:11 PM
> 
> >Actually, a classification can be wrong in and of itself
> 
> really, that makes about as much sense to me as saying that the Dewey
> System is wrong! It might not be good, but it certainly ain't "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 2:03:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> >read Ken's posts for endless specific examples ...
> 
> >>I don't see the endless examples in his posts. Ken talks about confusion
> when cladists use the same vernacular names, for example when referring to
> the Pongidae as either the great apes and humans versus just orangutans.
> I'm not up on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>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"
> 
> Actually, a classification can be wrong in and of itself. Maybe you meant
> something else by this?
> 
> Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses.
> 
> Kleo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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