[Taxacom] New systematics book

[Ken Kinman]

Hi Richard,

 

           Thanks, but I was hoping for an explanation using an actual example of a paraphyletic taxon, such as Class Reptilia (paraphyletically excluding birds). I'm not entirely sure if you consider Reptilia as evolutionary paraphyletic or phylogenetically paraphyletic. 

 

         ----------Ken

 



Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 07:54:48 -0500
From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
To: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu







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/ 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




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.