[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?

[Stephen Thorpe]

John,
Except that you could see it as tectonics helping to confirm (or refute) individual phylogenetic hypotheses. The key word here is "individual". The fact that many phylogenetic hypotheses may be confirmed by tectonics doesn't tell you anything about those phylogenetic hypotheses which haven't yet been tested.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 30/11/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>, "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 1:15 PM
 
 Rich might
 have a different opinion, but I think they come close as we
 can to facts. Otherwise the results would be meaningless
 regarding biogeography. The fact that time and again
 phylogenetic arrangements match tectonic structures (often
 in surprising detail) shows that there is indeed something
 beyond mere hypotheses in the more vacuous sense.
 John Grehan
 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at
 7:07 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 Rich,
 
 Yes, one major problem involves people trying to
 "formalize" every phylogenetic hypothesis into a
 classification! I'm really confused about one major and
 fundamental issue relating to phylogenies, which has
 considerable bearing on this issue. Are phylogenies merely
 hypotheses (to be tested, which is an ongoing process
 without a clear endpoint) or are they already the nearest
 things we can get to "facts"? If they are merely
 hypotheses, then it makes little or no sense to use them to
 alter classifications.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Stephen
 
 
 
 ------------------------------ --------------
 
 On Wed, 30/11/16, Richard Pyle
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to
 "birds'?
 
  To: "'John Grehan'" <calabar.john at gmail.com>,
 "'Kenneth Kinman'" <kinman at hotmail.com>
 
  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
  Received: Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 12:16 PM
 
 
 
  > I have seem
 
  > innumerable molecular phylogenies
 
  generating many branching points
 
  >
 
  involving many taxa, but as long as the tree is presented
 I
 
  am not sure what
 
  > you see to be so
 
  complicated or splintered. With respect to splintered
 are
 
  you
 
  > saying some phylogenetic
 
  relationships should remain unresolved so the
 
  > pattern is 'simple'?
 
 
 
  I can't answer for Ken,
 
  but one point I have been making for many years is that
 if
 
  you want to represent inferred evolutionary
 relationships
 
  among organisms, then cladograms and similar
 branch-type
 
  diagrams are an extremely effective tool for
 communicating
 
  them.  I think the problem happens when people have
 tried
 
  to use a hierarchcal classification and nomenclatural
 system
 
  originally developed by a creationist (aka, Linnean
 
  nomenclature) as a system explicitly for communicating
 
  hypothesized inferred evolutionary relationships. 
 Such
 
  names and classifications have a history spanning more
 than
 
  two and a half centuries (a century before Darwin), and
 
  benefit to some degree on stability of usage over time.
 
 
 
  Thus, let's use line
 
  drawings like cladograms to communicate our specific
 ideas
 
  about inferred evolutionary relationships, and leave
 the
 
  nomenclature to the function it has very effectively
 
  fulfilled for many years.  Clearly there is (and
 should
 
  be!) a very high degree of congruence between the two
 
  systems of communication.  But attempts to use the
 latter
 
  as a strict communication tool to represent the former
 often
 
  (usually?) serves neither goal effectively. Birds are a
 
  great example of this.
 
 
 
  Aloha,
 
  Rich
 
 
 
 
 
  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
 
  Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences |
 
  Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety
 Officer
 
  Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum,
 
  1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
 
  Ph:
 
  (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 
  http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/
 staff/pylerichard.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ______________________________
 _________________
 
  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
 
 
 
  Injecting Intellectual
 
  Liquidity for 29 years.