[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

[Richard Zander]

Total nonsense. There is LITTLE scientific information to be derived
from sister-group analysis. Ancestral taxa are not given when they could
be. There is MUCH scientific information to be derived from a
classification based on a Besseyan cactus-like evolutionary tree. There
is MORE to be derived from discussions accompanying such a
classification.

Any taxon at any rank that is definable as a caulistic unit is "real" in
the sense of being operational. If sufficiently dependable such that you
decide to act on it, then it is the kind of scientific realism reflected
by operationalism. Which provides a pretty strong sense of reality.

 

____________________________
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
Framework: http://tinyurl.com/ltd66dw
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 Chris Thompson
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:59 AM
To: Anthony Gill; Tony Rees
Cc: laith_jawad at hotmail.com; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications

There is NO scientific information to be derived from higher
classifications 
as there are NO scientific principles / standards underlying our current

classifications.