[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[John Grehan]

I have no problem with this. After all, there are pleny of monotypic genera in this world, and I would not be suprised if there are also no shortage of monotypic families even if they are a small number of the total.
 
But for those who argue for separation of phylogeny and classification, classification units are either way arbitrary in their scope of inclusion anyway. One could include humans and their nearest relatives under one family name as the chimpanzee relationship supporters have done, or do as we have. But there is no scientific authority demanding either.
 
John Grehan

________________________________

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Sun 12/19/2010 11:09 PM
To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)


>under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is Pongidae for orangutans, Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for humans. Nothing confusing about that
 
No, but it is way too oversplit - 3 families for 4 extant genera!


________________________________

From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 3:45:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

I don't see any confusion with taxonomic labels so long as one knows the phylogeny to which it is appended - whether or not one is a cladist.

As for Pongidae - under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is Pongidae for orangutans, Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for humans. Nothing confusing about that.

John Grehan