[Taxacom] New systematics book

Thu Sep 5 17:21:30 CDT 2013

This is really hard to get across, Ken, because phylogenetic jargon has
taken a life of its own.

In evolutionary systematics, classes Reptilia and Aves are
evolutionarily monophyletic even if Reptilia is paraphyletic in
phylogenetics. In evolutionary systematics, the sister groups of
phylogenetics are replaced by transformations of one taxon to another.
Pseudoextinction is apparently rare, and peripatric (= parapatric)
speciation is the rule. Morphological stasis of ancestral taxa is
expected as usual condition. At higher ranks, many large groups have
other evolutionarily quite different groups embedded in them if viewed
as sister groups.

Sure, Reptilia that includes birds is holophyletic. That is a
phylogenetic term and that is all. It helps with phylogenetic
classification, but says little about macroevolutionary transformatory
relationships, only sister-group relationships. 

How does traditional class Reptilia include birds, class Aves? 

____________________________
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: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:00 PM
To: Richard Zander; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book

Hi Richard,

     You say: 

If we exclude extinct groups that force lumping, then whenever Reptilia
is used to include birds, it is evolutionarily paraphyletic.

My response:           

      That doesn't sound right to me.  Wouldn't a taxon Reptilia that
includes birds actually be holophyletic?  On the other hand, the
traditional Class Reptilia does exclude birds and is paraphyletic
(whether or not one includes extinct taxa).  

                        -----------------Ken

________________________________

Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:54:34 -0500
From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
To: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Ken:

There are two ways phylogenetics deals with paraphyly. 1. By splitting,
which divides a good taxon "on principle." 2. By lumping, which combines
two good taxa "on principle."  Strict phylogenetic monophyly is the
principle.

If Reptilia combines two good taxa "on principle" then you have
evolutionary paraphyly. But Reptilia is problematic as far as an example
is concerned since it can include clear-cut extinct forms. I'm not sure
of the taxonomically metaphysical aspects of combining dinos and birds.
If we have NOW a diagnosable gap between reptiles s.str. and birds
s.str. does that mean we have separate taxa?  If there were ever
intermediates between two present-day species must they be combined into
one species? Since there could be intermediates between all species,
maybe we should lump all species together? I wonder what its name would
be? Solves a LOT of problems.

If we exclude extinct groups that force lumping, then whenever Reptilia
is used to include birds, it is evolutionarily paraphyletic.

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: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Richard Zander; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book

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/
<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.