[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?

[John Grehan]

True, although I was not thinking of 'testing' as such for individual
cases. Rather that there is a demonstrated correlated reality in phylogeny
as a general principle. Not sure what 'testing' is anymore. The tectonic
correlation is just dismissed as creationism by some authorities.

John Grehan

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>