[Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis

[Richard Zander]

This is where I find discussions of species concepts putting the cart
before the horse. Those who inflict species concepts on nature do more
than just predict, they influence the stuff of reality, largely as
communicated with names. 

I call this protothetic, or categorizing by first principles. All
deductions from first principles are apodictic, true because they are
deductions from true first principles. Finding consistency and neat
nesting is impressive if you start with ONLY parsimony, or cluster
analysis, or crossing experiments, or molecular lineages, or whatever.
But elements of protothetic classifications can be terribly wrong. 

Surely nature teaches us about evolution, evolution is by many complex
processes, and classification can't be protothetic and result in
well-tempered nomenclature.

*****************************
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 Robin Leech
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: Peter Kuchar
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis

This is a question we used to mull around regarding
the fossil horseshoe crab, Limulus, and the present day
species.  The fossil and the extant specimens are
morphologically identical.  But, are they genetically close
enough to breed?
Robin