[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Richard Zander]

No, the underlying relationships of taxa are NOT based on the best
current evidence (in phylogenetics) because only selected (sister-group
informative) data are studied, and the mass of information from
biosystematics, ecology, biogeography, etc. is ignored. That, plus
throwing in an artificial simplifying principle (holophyly), generates
what a friend back in high school called a "fudilydiddily." (Why is this
such fun?)

Darwin's dream is shown by him in the one illustration in his Origin of
Species, which is an ancestor-descendant tree. Phylogenetics produces
sister-group trees. Reptiles are a discrete and hence scientifically
informative group. "Subjective opinion" is not what classical
systematists use to make informed judgments, they use discursive
reasoning and long-tested informal genetic algorithms to sort groups and
relate them, preferably along the lines of descent with modification of
taxa but at least through similarity of apparently homologous traits. 

You sound subjective and axiomatized. The slogan of structuralism is
"Structuralism is all!" I think you support structuralism, which is
promoted as a substitute for empiricism. J'accuse! (Just to try to start
a Taxacom wrangle about structuralism, nothing personal.)

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
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 stuart longhorn
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 3:35 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species



To just question Richard Zander, about his statements [quote] "I think
phylogenetic scrambling of taxa will do the same for biodiversity
analysis nowadays, with similar sad results. (1) Critical taxa are
lumped because they make other taxa paraphyletic (e.g. polar bears don'
exist biodiversitywise, cacti are only portulacas, birds are just
airborne reptiles), and (2) Critical taxa are buried among a plethora of
molecular nonsense species."  Sorry, but isnt such modern revision
helping establish the underlying relationships of phyla based on the
best available current evidence, and so working towards darwins dream of
"true geneological trees for each great kingdom of nature"? or do you
want to stick with the old textbooks containing outdated information
like that reptiles are a discrete and hence valid group ? That sounds
rather like subjective opinion rather than empirical driving research.

stuart.