[Taxacom] FW: Wrangling incongruence

[Rob Smissen]

Warning: what follows is shameless self promotion!

For an example of treating incongruence rather than dismissing it check out

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/pre-prints/11552smissen

Down with The One True Tree!

cheers
Rob
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate [jfmate at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2011 10:39 p.m.
To: Taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

> 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?

> 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?


One man's noise is another man's data, tt is noise if it doesn't apply to the level you are looking at. When researchers speak of signal and noise I don't think they are making the distinction between good/bad but between useful (to me, now) and ''useless''. I think we all do this but in the case of molecular data you have to deal with the numerous characters which are simply not useful to you particular question.

 From what I have seen and in my limited experience the noise issue is best dealt with through the
addition of taxa. And here lies a very important contribution that classical taxonomists make. It is much more difficult to get the material than sequencing; hence lab-based research is focused on more data from the same taxa instead of closing gaps. Sometimes ''field'' taxonomists are approached by lab researchers for specimens. Often the specimens are rare, have small distributions, narrow phenologies and very specific ecologies, but the assumption out there is that one can just go to the backyard and pick them up. So the idea that ''modern'' taxonomy doesn't need classical taxonomists is spurious. The simple truth is that we give out our services for free and then are told that our services have no value.

Jason

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz