[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Bob Mesibov]

Richard Zander wrote:

"This is done by coming up with a scientific theory of evolutionary process for each group that explains and conciliates results of alpha taxonomy, morphological analysis, and molecular analyses... What is important is not to let any one member demand that his/her analytical method must control or will explain the results of any other method, but that all results be explained by a separate unified theory... This is possible."

Just as hard as wrangling your team members will be dealing with incongruence and fitting it within your evolutionary picture. Who does this now? Is there anyone who seriously examines incongruence, instead of dismissing it as noise and an obstacle to discovering the One True Tree?

If I understand you correctly, that's what 'explains and conciliates' would be tackling. Do you have a plan for this?

Regardless of what group is being studied, what I read in the literature suggests that investigators are looking for evolutionary 'signal' in their data. The 'signal' is regarded as evolution, the rest isn't. This is a very strange idea. Surely *all* the data reflect what's happened during evolution?

Maybe someday there'll be well-funded Departments of Evolutionary Incongruence and Centres of Excellence for the Study of Homoplasy, with PR pronouncements like 'We thought it was just random mutation in that intron, but it turns out this be a very clever redesign of the protein to take advantage of the warmer temperatures in the habitat this lineage moved into.'
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570