[Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

[Richard Zander]

Okay, Jim, you need deprogramming real bad. 

Scientific rigor in this day-and-age means precision of statistical
results. Postmodernly, all systematics is brain-clamped by the falsely
relevant fact that Markov chain analysis only requires present-day data.
History begins when phylogeneticists put their pants on in the morning.
We use Markov chain analysis when traits are stochastic and evolutionary
results are entirely random/drunkard's walk; but they are not since
selection clearly operates some or even much of the time. 

Ken commented that recognizing paraphyletic taxa, at least sometimes, is
a good thing for systematics. This is a discussion of theory, not
mathematical fact. He suggests a pluralist methodology for
classification. What's wrong with that? 

I suggest the same, but with somewhat different criteria for estimating
evolutionary relationships. My pluralism combines cladistic exactness
and caulistic theory (the latter often derided as just-so-stories, mere
narrative, intuitive blatherings, and evil dissention that undermines
the power and funding of phylogenetic nabobs, panjandrums and
magnificoes). 

Okay, Jim, you don't really need deprogramming. I just used your note as
a springboard for another slightly polemical "clarification." 

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 Jim Croft
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:21 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

I am quite prepared to listen to arguments for and against the merits or
otherwise of paraphyly, but the statement below is totally subjective
and has all the scientific rigour of a cooking competition judgement.

Surely taxonomy and systematics can do better than this in its claim to
science?

What next?  Rejection of excessive evolution?  Compromise with special
creation?  Just the right amount of quantum physics?  Popular vote on
the acceptable force of gravity or limiting pi to three decimal places?
Declaring a tomato a vegetable? (oh, people, probably closet
paraphylists, already do that!)

Head... meet desk... repeat...

jim

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
wrote:
> Instead of totally rejecting paraphyletic taxa, he should have taken a

> middle course that rejected ONLY excessive paraphyly.

--