[Taxacom] renaming (was: Cyanoprokaryota help)

Thu Mar 21 20:10:56 CDT 2013

I have no informed opinion about the validity of Archaea/Archaebacteria
etc., but I do think that Ken misrepresents (again) systematics when
blaming problems with Australopithecus or Hominidae on cladistics. The
problem in the latter groups lies with shoddy systematics through a lack of
consistent morphological documentation and outgroup comparisons for claimed
characters - and in some cases such analyses are not really cladistic (and
some practitioners classifying australopiths were against cladistics as
well).

In any situation where there are conflicting proposals for relationship the
taxonomic labels are going to be ambiguous unless specified - where
cladistics or not. And the same could apply to paraphyletic groupings
should there be different possibilities  Pongidae worked just fine once in
that it was not controversial, and it was then not regarded as being
paraphyletic anyway (i.e. great apes were all thought to be more closely
related to each other than any to humans). Even Pongidae is now ambiguous
as there is a choice between using it as a paraphyletic assemblage of great
apes, or as a monophyletic group for orangutans and fossil taxa more
closely related to orangutans than taxa more closely related to humans.

Early australopiths are more like orangutans neck up, and more like humans
waist down.

John Grehan

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Dan,
>
>        You keep saying that renaming is "necessary", but it's only
> necessary if one forbids any paraphyly whatsoever (although admittedly such
> strict cladism is now unfortunately too widely taken for granted and taught
> to new generations of biologists).  It can make a real mess of things,
> especially when it is based on very limited data (and including the
> problems Richard was pointing out).  Australopithecus (sensu lato), the
> paraphyletic mother group of our genus Homo, has been made a splintered
> mess.  Now you want to do the same thing to Eubacteria?
>
>         The renaming "cure" of strict cladism is too often far worse than
> the so-called "problem" of a paraphyletic taxon (and that problem is often
> just the result of being taught that paraphyly is never to be tolerated).
>  Splitting up the paraphyletic Family Pongidae or alternately dumping it
> into Family Hominidae, has also made a mess, with no one particular
> classification predominating.  If you say Family Hominidae, noone knows
> what you are taking about (Homo alone; Homo + chimps; Homo + chimps and
> gorilla; Homo + chimps, gorillas, and orangs).  The old paraphyletic Family
> Pongidae worked just fine and now we just have a big mess.
>
>       Anyway, if anything needed to be renamed it is
> Archaea/Archaebacteria.  When Hori and Osawa (over 30 years ago) discovered
> that they were indeed just a branch within the Eubacteria, they renamed
> them Metabacteria, but that renaming (which would indeed have been helpful)
> was ignored.  So we now see the widespread misconception that
> Archaebacteria are older than Eubacteria, and even the fanciful suggestions
> that they may well have given rise to life in thermal vents.  Renaming in
> moderation is fine, but has become a paraphylophobic obsession that can be
> very harmful.  What we need is limited paraphyly in moderation (retaining
> paraphyletic taxa where they are most needed and useful).
>
>                       --------------Ken
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:47:11 -0300
> > From: dlahr at ib.usp.br
> > To: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> > CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help
> >
> > My apologies Richard, but I do not see how your commentary relates to
> this
> > thread. I mean this comment literally, as in, you will have to explain it
> > a bit further.
> >
> > We never discussed molecular vs morphological, I do not understand how
> that
> > is relevant here. We are also not discussing species relationships, but
> > deep lineages. Additionally, I do not see a connection between your
> > interpretations of ancestor-descendant relationship scenarios and
> > phylogenetic resolution. In my view, both cases you have pointed out only
> > indicate error in the initial naming, ie, if a genus nests within
> another,
> > this means renaming is necessary. This does not indicate a general flaw
> > with the reconstruction method.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Richard Zander <
> Richard.Zander at mobot.org>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not objective? The fundamental phylogenetic presupposition that of any
> > > three species two are more closely related fails totally in two cases:
> > >
> > > 1) paraphyly, including nesting of genera among species of other
> genera.
> > >
> > > 2) when any one generalist, wide-ranging extant species can be easily
> > > hypothesized as ancestral to one or more derived, highly specialized,
> > > and possibly evolutionarily dead-end descendant species.
> > >
> > > Both cases are common. Ergo phylogenetic resolution of branch order is
> > > commonly random in both morphological and molecular analyses. This is
> > > not even subjective much less objective.
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________
> > > 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
> > > UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Lahr
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:22 PM
> > > To: Ken Kinman
> > > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help
> > >
> > > Hi Ken,
> > >
> > > I am familiar with your views on strictly monophyletic classifications.
> > > I personally find the discussion constructive for science. However, I
> > > have not been convinced that allowing paraphyletic classifications is a
> > > good solution, but this is not the place to go into the gritty details.
> > > Therefore, I stick to the general convention of naming exclusively
> > > monophyletic entities.
> > >
> > > Dividing life into Prokaryota and Eukaryota is unsatisfactory, because
> > > these are grades and do not lead to any objectivity, and do not reflect
> > > things we know about the true nature of the critters.
> > >
> > > There may surely be a possibility that the root of life is within
> > > bacteria, which would make eukaryotes and archaea simply branches on
> the
> > > bacterial tree. If so, then a lot of bacterial groups would need to be
> > > renamed, because our understanding of the true diversity will remain
> > > restrictive and flawed if we do not change the names.
> > >
> > > The system allows relabeling when relabeling is needed. The Woesian
> > > revolution has shown that relabeling was needed, and relabeling ensued.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >
> > > The Taxacom Archive 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
> > >
> > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ___________________
> > Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD
> > Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology,
> > Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
> > + 55 (11) 3091 0948
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive 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
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive 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
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>