[Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

[Richard Zander]

So...Stephen you are saying "That's not science" is an old (and
apparently therefore unimpressive) accusation when I suggest that
scientists are passing off artificial classifications as based on
evolution? Passing them off because patterns of evidence of evolution
are made to be neatly dichotomous and are often statistically well
supported, rocket science, even though artificial? 

 

I think your response is an excellent example of shifting ground. I talk
about science and you talk about classification, as though
classification is not based on science. And I think you are right,
phylogenetic classification is not based on science. I hear no theories,
no induction, no discussion of taxa evolving from taxa, no discussion of
differences just similarities. It's like we are in the Agora again
arguing over the Absolutes. 

 

I think once phylogenetic methods (innocent and powerful) have been let
out of the bottle, lots of evolutionary theory can be generated from
cladograms. Restricting phylogenetic results to mere classification is a
disservice, certainly to biodiversity specialists and certainly to
students who may value scientific use of induction to make theories
about WHY there is paraphyly and polyphyly of taxonomically identical
exemplars. Students? You hear this? Opportunity knocks for the bold.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm

________________________________

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Richard Zander; Curtis Clark; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

 

surely not the old "that's not science" argument!! Lots of things aren't
science ... in fact just about everything except science isn't science,
like art, recreation, management, eating, ... Specifically,
bioinformatics (=biodiversity information management) isn't science, but
just like the other things that aren't science, that doesn't mean that
it isn't worth doing ... So scientists can worry about the fact that the
classification that bioinformaticians are using isn't science, but
bioinformaticians and bioinformatic data users need not worry about that
...

 

Stephen

 

________________________________

From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Curtis Clark
<lists at curtisclark.org>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 11:48:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

Stephen:

If you try to mix classifications based on patterns of evidence
(phylogenetics) and classifications based on theories of evolution of a
group (evolutionary systematics) you will always get a mish-mash of
apples and oranges. A paraphyletic group is a synchronic
(one-dimensional present-day) view of a diachronic (through time)
evolutionary process. The phylogenetic view is from well-supported
evidence and the evolutionary view is theory. Only the last is science.
The first is artificial.

R. 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm


-----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 11:12 PM
To: Curtis Clark; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)

>But name me an uncrackable paraphyletic group

basal Bilateria ... where do Acoela and Nematodermata fit in?
Xenoturbellida?

>Certainly Reptilia seems well-cracked

then please point me to a fully-worked out published Linnean
classification 
which is congruent with the phylogeny (i.e., with mammals and birds as 
subordinate to the class Reptilia, but still with Linnean ranks) ...

Stephen