[Taxacom] Rejoinder to a monster review

Fri Dec 5 13:34:29 CST 2014

 .. I think a number of us are already being taxed by this thread ...

😀

but I'm not deleting anything for fear I'll be seen as somehow suppressing
something in some fashion or other ...

On Stardate 12/5/14 9:27 AM, "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
wrote:

>What a strange discussion! I hope I did not give the impression that I
>wanted to suppress phylogenetics. Certainly not! There is much to faintly
>praise about phylogenetics.
>
>Phylogenetics should be taxed. The proceeds to help mitigate the
>epistemological loss of taxa through lumping, splitting, and hiding in an
>avalanche of molecularly cryptic species, genera and families. Imagine a
>virtual zoo or garden devoted to the memory of phylogenetically extinct
>families.
>
>☺
>
>
>-------
>Richard H. Zander
>Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri –
>63110 – USA
>richard.zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
>Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
>http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>
>From: John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 3:12 PM
>To: Richard Jensen
>Cc: Richard Zander; Taxacom(taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu}
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Rejoinder to a monster review
>
>Richard,
>My claim is based on my experience of what I have seen. It is evident to
>me that suppression of viewpoints does occur, either with intent or just
>as a consequence of one’s choice (and I do not exclude myself). In
>biogeography I tend to work in a traditional plate tectonics paradigm,
>but I am aware of others such as expanding earth. The latter may be
>valid, I don’t know, but in making a choice to use plate tectonic models
>I suppose that I am suppressing consideration of the alternative.
>
>This choice suppression may be considered different to active suppression
>where scientists may either prevent publication of alternatives, or
>represent a field as if other viewpoints do not exist. Of course proof is
>not always possible, but there are some instances I have seen. In once
>case a letter from an editor stated that papers mentioning Croizat would
>not be published in his journal as long as he was editor. In a recent
>instance Systematic Biology published a paper more or less calling for
>the banning of panbiogeography, and this being compounded by a refusal to
>publish a response (not by me). Obviously I am referring to my own pet
>issues, but they illustrate the principle that within science suppression
>does occur in various forms, justified or not.
>
>John Grehan
>
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Richard Jensen
><rjensen at saintmarys.edu<mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu>> wrote:
>John,
>Can you please cite references for your claim that the "process of
>science is...to suppress".  While I know that there are numerous
>instances of movements to suppress information, I wasn't aware that such
>suppression was part of the process, at least not as I understand the
>process of science.
>Dick J
>
>On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM, John Grehan
><calabar.john at gmail.com<mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com>> wrote:
>I get the impression that quite a few natural science journals shy away
>from allowing debate or responses. Syst Biol certainly went that way over
>the attack they published against panbiogeography so I suppose its not
>surprising to see in other journals. After all, the process of science is
>not only to discover, but also to suppress. Not good or bad, but just the
>way it works.
>
>John Grehan
>
>On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Richard Zander
><Richard.Zander at mobot.org<mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org>>
>wrote:
>
>> Taxacomers:
>>
>> A monster review of my book was published by the journal Cladistics, but
>> they refused to publish my rebuttal. Another journal with a kindly
>>editor
>> did so, however.
>>
>> My rejoinder to this nasty review was entirely collegial, gentle, caring
>> and supportive of all forms of systematics, and I hope solvent of
>> misunderstandings. I only mentioned Hitler once.
>>
>> Those of you who continue to enjoy the continuing and increasingly
>>surreal
>> drama of the paraphyly wars might view my review of the review:
>>
>>
>>http://phytoneuron.net/2014Phytoneuron/110PhytoN-ParaphylophilyResponse.p
>>df
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> -------
>> Richard H. Zander
>> Missouri Botanical Garden - 4344 Shaw Blvd. - St. Louis - Missouri -
>>63110
>> - USA
>>
>>richard.zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org><mailto:richard.
>>zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>>
>> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
>> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
>--
>Richard Jensen, Professor
>Department of Biology
>Saint Mary's College
>Notre Dame, IN 46556
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.