[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[John Grehan]

I'm sure we would have a nice stable classification if we ignored phylogenetics and had just one person (or God) make one decision about it all. Then wouldn't everybody be happy.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:57 PM
To: murrellze; Kleo Pullin
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

>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




________________________________
From: murrellze <murrellze at appstate.edu>
To: Kleo Pullin <kleopullin at pacbell.net>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 8:10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Kleo,

I can't answer your questions, but I am struck by the usefulness of this discussion in pointing out that 1) classifications are most valuable when they reflect our knowledge of evolutionary history and 2) the Phylocode is the best way we currently have to reflect evolutionary history in a classification system. 

The Linnaean classification system is woefully inadequate, as demonstrated in this discussion thread.  Why are we attempting to classify life in the 21st century without including our understanding of the "tree of life"?

Zack Murrell

Kleo Pullin wrote:
> I have a few questions about this discussion:
>  1. Why/how/for what is Protista more useful or convenient?
>  2. And what is the difference between usefulness and 
>convenience--this thread is titled "Usefulness vs. convenience?"
> 
>  
>>>        As for rhodophytes (and glaucophytes),
>>>      
> Cavalier-Smith includes them in a very broad Kingdom Plantae. Others  
>have left them in Protista, but included green algae in Plantae (making  
>it equivalent to Viridiplantae).  3. Who has left rhodophyta in the Protista?
>  Thanks,
>  Kleo Pullin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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