[Taxacom] New systematics book

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Thu Sep 5 17:33:34 CDT 2013 


Wow, it this had not just come in on a communication system not invented
then, I would  think I was reading something from 1976!  Is this a 1980's
theme party?

Mike

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


-- 
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu

More information about the Taxacom mailing list