[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Kim van der Linde]

Richard,

You never disappoint in your reactions. ;-)

Yes, a new era, didn't you get the memo from the AAAS politburo?. An era 
in which we actually can proof that some trait has evolved a specific 
way instead of just some hand waiving about trait states and the order 
they evolved in. By Odin, how long do we want to provide the christian 
creationists with fodder by producing the so-manniest so-so story about 
how we hypothesize how it maybe could have evolved if we are correct?

Instead of grouping all species based on a morphological characteristic 
that is based on nothing more than an on-off switch for a single gene 
(like sex-combs or wing spots), we actually can avoid those kind of 
pitfalls and group species according to their actually relatedness based 
on a lot of hard data without the subjective interference of 
per-definition biased good-meaning researchers.

Birds will be finally properly classified as reptiles with feathers, and 
mammals as reptiles with hairs. Finally, we can get rid of these 
historical artifacts introduced by good-meaning scientists who just 
didn't have the tools to do things properly. Sure, the traditionalists 
will keep protesting while their beloved taxa are dismantled. But now 
that we have the tools, and especially soon when we can do a genome for 
$100 in one day, the old-fashioned ways of actually looking at 
characters will be just that, old-fashioned. Better start learning 
proper DNA-speak....

Kim
PS LOL

On 6/8/2010 12:34 PM, Richard Zander wrote:
> Ah, orthodoxy. Actually the Code(s) are intended for all of us. Even the
> unorthodox.
>
> "New era"? Like Lysenkoism was a new era? New eras offer great things to
> substitute for the old, or at least build on the old. I see (1)
> morphological parsimony to help create natural keys, and (2) molecular
> analyses to show lineages and possible isolation events of individual
> specimens (which are not exemplars of species or higher taxa until they
> are statistically demonstrated as such). This is helpful information but
> not signifying a new era.
>
> Unless, unless . . . you think massive data about mostly non-coding
> traits that help (when not terribly self-contradictory) show genetic
> continuity of lineages, that this somehow overwhelms data on taxa in
> morphological analyses? These data are about relationships of specimens,
> not taxa.
>
> Yes, molecular analyses are beyond the purview of the Code(s), they are
> more in the purview of True Believers.
>
> *****************************
> 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 Kim van der
> Linde
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 6:50 AM
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>
>
>
> On 6/8/2010 7:36 AM, Jason Mate wrote:
>> P.S. OK, I thought of one thing that could happen, Phylocode will take
> over!
>
> It will anyway, just by virtue of the orthodoxy that is build in to the
> code. This article, and the one on Zaprionus I mentioned are just a few
> articles representing a new era. The wealth of molecular data and the
> corresponding insights in the relationships between taxa/clades is going
> to result in more and more situations that are beyond the purview of the
> Code.
>
> Kim
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com