[Taxacom] New systematics book

[Richard Zander]

Well, sure, Ken. Whenever an evolutionarily monophyletic group is split
to render it phylogenetically monophyletic in two parts, you end up with
two nonmonophyletic taxa (evolutionarily) that are actually the same.
Phylogenetic paraphyly is when you have two taxa that are the same that
phylogeneticists treat as different. "Para" implies faulty, wrong,
amiss, or merely similar to the true form. The literature is now replete
with evolutionarily nonmonophyletic but phylogenetically monophyletic
taxa.

 

Richard

 

____________________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/>  and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm> 
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
<http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm> 
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

________________________________

From: Ken Kinman [mailto:kinman at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:51 PM
To: Richard Zander; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book

 

Hi Richard,
 
          I was reading the summary of the book.  You say that
evolutionary paraphyly should be avoided, but phylogenetic paraphyly can
be useful.  Are you talking mainly about paraphyletic genera and
paraphyletic species, or does this apply at higher ranks as well?  Can
you give an example of an evolutionary paraphyletic taxon (rank higher
than family) that is bad and must be avoided?
 
                        -------------Ken
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
 

> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:28:57 -0500
> From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] New systematics book
> 
> I have recently published "A Framework for Post-Phylogenetic
> Systematics." Many of the ideas were discussed here on Taxacom, and I
am
> grateful to those who participated in the exchanges pro or con.
> 
> The book is available on Amazon. Just search for zander + framework.
It
> is quite inexpensive. The white cover allows students in phylogenetic
> establishments to carry the book secretly by wrapping it in a cover
torn
> from a cladistics journal.
> 
> As an exercise in practicality, I split a genus into several segregate
> genera based on a new empiric genus concept. For at least some taxa,
the
> genus may be considered the basic unit of evolution. I would
appreciate
> your feedback through Taxacom, or offline if you want to be
anonymously
> positive.
> 
> Richard Zander
> richard.zander at mobot.org 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.