[Taxacom] Funding by NSF for taxonomy and phylogenetics compared

[John Grehan]

Ken, just saying something is 'destructive' does not necessarily make it
so.

John Grehan

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Richard,      Peter Ashlock, who truly understood the value of
> cladistic "analysis" done correctly, also warned us how destructive
> strictly cladistic "classifications" would become.  Unfortunately he died
> too young and such classifications (which Mayr called cladistications) have
> often caused even more damage.  I would recommend the following paper
> Ashlock published long ago:
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096881?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:06:29 +0000
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Funding by NSF for taxonomy and phylogenetics compared
> >
> >
> > I have submitted over the years various diatribes and Jeremiads to
> Taxacom against the outrages of phylogenetics. Some Taxacomers have
> reassured us that phylogenetics is a passing fad, and will fade away like
> the morning dew, or change into something deep and refreshing.
> >
> > Just to check with reality, I searched the funding database in NSF for
> the words "phylogeny" and "taxonomy" in the titles or abstracts for the
> last 5 years. The results, which I tabulated in Excel, are:
> >
> >         Phylogeny                                       Taxonomy
> > 2015    33611140                                2015    16574900
> > 2014    23649263                                2014    14951327
> > 2013    11091123                                2013    12055369
> > 2012    8052574                         2012    16439643
> > 2011    8801433                         2011    22627716
> >
> > total   85205533                                total   82648955
> >
> > Thus, projects about "phylogeny" and those about "taxonomy" are about
> equally funded over the last 5 years at $82 to 85 million dollars.
> Taxonomy seems to be holding steady at around $12-14 million per year, but
> phylogeny has had a burst of popularity among NSF grantors, doubling in
> funding during 2013-2014, and then increasing in 2015 by another 10 million
> dollars. It is presently funded at double the rate of taxonomy.
> >
> > Some have said that phylogenetics research usually includes good
> taxonomy. Check the pages of top phylogenetics journals and see if you
> agree with them that phylogenetics contributes to taxonomic knowledge in
> the classical sense.
> >
> > -------
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>