[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Why can't we have them both?

Slightly ambiguous, but I assume you mean, Don, why can't we have them both as 
separate activities, rather than having to shoe-horn evolutionary history into 
classifications? If that's what you mean, then I agree (at least to the extent 
that paraphyletic taxa should be acceptable in classifications) ...




________________________________
From: "Don.Colless at csiro.au" <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 4:59:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

After many years I still fail to understand why our understanding of 
evolutionary history must be displayed (incompletely) in a classification. Sure, 
the first is important AND fascinating and no doubt requires good scientific 
guesswork; BUT it can be fully displayed using various well-known devices, 
including explicit narrative. And the second requires a useful way of displaying 
the distribution of attributes of present day organisms, for the benefit of 
biologists in general.  Why can't we have them both? We don't have to keep on 
arguing against the bishops - and the creationists can't be argued with anyway.

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On 
Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: 20 December 2010 06:57
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