[Taxacom] Paraphyletic species and paraphyletic higher taxa

[murrellze]

In fact, Darwin's figure is very different from a Besseyian cactus in 
the that the vertical axis is clearly delineated as the time axis, and 
the figure also attempts to depict both extinctions and extant lineages.

Zack Murrell


Richard Zander wrote:
> Phylogenetic trees are not reconstructions of evolution, they are structures of data. Darwin produced a theory of evolution from structures of data, involving informal clustering. Phylogeneticists refuse to produce theories of evolution of descent with modification particular to cluster-produced structures of information about some group. 
>
> There is one diagram in the Origin of Species. It is more like a Besseyan cactus than a cladogram.
>
>  
> * * * * * * * * * * * * 
> 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 Richard Jensen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:43 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paraphyletic species and paraphyletic higher taxa
> Besides, just because my analysis suggests that group A is a 
> monophyletic, that doesn't mean it really is.  Just that the data on  hand suggest it is.  By what criterion do I know that the reconstruction is accurate?
>
> Dick J
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>