[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 21:02:56 CST 2016
Yep,I bet there can be quite a lot of that.
John Grehan
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> wrote:
> " ...why bother proposing the tree in the first place"
>
> I once asked a taxonomist this very question, relating to a published
> phylogeny which lacked any conclusions whatsoever. I don't think the person
> I asked was an author of the paper, but anyway he replied [quote]Well,
> people have to eat[unquote]! In other words, phylogenetics is "just a job",
> and you need to "publish or perish"..
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 30/11/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?
> To: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "deepreef at bishopmuseum.org" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "Stephen
> Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 3:54 PM
>
> So I get
> the impression from your comments Ken that you object to too
> many taxonomic categories being proposed by (which could
> apply to any group with many branches regardless of whether
> cladistic or otherwise). Can sympathize, although there is
> no objective way to impose a limit.
> Interesting converse to taxonomic
> categories that are not shown on the tree is where a new
> phylogeny proposed breaking up numerous taxa (such as
> genera), but no formal change to the generic classification.
> One wonders if the authors are in such doubt about their
> results why bother proposing the tree in the first place.
>
> John
> Grehan
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at
> 8:14 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi
> Stephen and Richard,
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree. Frankly, I love splintered
> cladograms and trees. However, when that splintering is
> incorporated into classifications (often prematurely), such
> classifications become less and less useful.
>
>
>
>
>
> I just found one example in the Wikipedia article
> for Archosauriformes. It has both a tree and a
> classification, but the classification has taxa not shown in
> the tree (and vice versa). And the classification already
> contains a new clade Eucrocopoda proposed this year, so not
> much time for others to test this hypothesis. And to get
> to Crocopoda you have to jump back above clade
> Archosauriformes, which is weird, and Eucrocopoda is between
> Archosauriformes and Archosauria (equally weird).
>
>
>
>
>
> But perhaps weirdest of all, birds are now
> members of clades Crocopoda and Eucrocopoda:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Archosauriformes
>
>
>
> ---------------Ken
>
>
>
> P.S. Don't ask me how many clade names there are
> between Crocopoda and Aves, because I don't have time to
> count them all. Might make for an interesting tree, but
> it makes for a very messy, splintered classification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ __
>
> From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:07 PM
>
> To: 'John Grehan'; 'Kenneth Kinman'; deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
> What taxon corresponds to "birds'?
>
>
>
> 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
>
> [http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/
> staff/staffimages/pylerich.jpg ]<http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/
> staff/pylerichard.html>
>
>
>
> HBS Staff - RLPyle<http://hbs.
> bishopmuseum.org/staff/ pylerichard.html>
>
> hbs.bishopmuseum.org
>
> The State Museum of Cultural and Natural History, Honolulu,
> Hawai'i
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Mailing Lists<http://mailman.nhm.ku.
> edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ taxacom>
>
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named
> and brought to life by Dr. Richard Zander, Taxacom began its
> peripatetic existence on a dark and snowy ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Taxacom Archive
> back to 1992 may be
>
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Taxacom Home - MarkMail - Community libraries<http://taxacom.
> markmail.org/>
>
> taxacom.markmail.org
>
> MarkMail(tm) is developed and hosted by MarkLogic
> Corporation. MarkMail is a free service for searching
> mailing list archives, with huge advantages over traditional
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Injecting Intellectual
>
> Liquidity for 29 years.
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list