[Taxacom] New systematics book

Thu Sep 5 17:50:01 CDT 2013

Hi Richard,

You asked:

How does traditional class Reptilia include birds, class Aves?

My response:

It doesn't.  As I said, traditional Class Reptilia excludes Class Aves.  As for the term holophyletic, although it is a phylogenetic term, it was introduced by Peter Ashlock (an evolutionary taxonomist).  

 Anyway, even it you exclude extinct taxa (like dinosaurs, sensu stricto), Class Reptilia is still paraphyletic, with Crocodylia as sister group to birds.  

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

Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:21:30 -0500
From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
To: kinman at hotmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

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/ 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: 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/ 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: 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/ 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. 		 	   		  