[Taxacom] Elimination of paraphyly: sensible or not?

[John Grehan]

Ken is misleading to link lumping vs splitting as a cladistic problem. It
is not even a systematics problem. It is only a category problem of
classification and as much a problem no matter what kind of systematics one
supports.

John Grehan

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
>        In my opinion, there never was a good reason to eliminate all
> paraphyly.  There were too many paraphyletic groupings back in the mid-20th
> Century, but the goal should have been to reduce the number to only those
> that were clearly useful (Reptilia being just one).  Other examples would
> include Bryophyta (giving rise to tracheophytes), ferns giving rise to
> embryophytes, Sarcoptergyii (giving rise to tetrapods), Amphibia (giving
> rise to amniotes), Crustacea (giving rise to insects), dicots giving rise
> to monocots, and Prokaryota giving rise to Eukaryota.
>
>
>
>        But instead of just reducing the numbers of paraphyletic taxa, the
> cladists just declared that they were all unnatural, and the result is that
> noone can agree on a classification of any of the useful paraphyletic
> taxa.  Lots of wasted resources in the battle between splitters and lumpers
> on the best way to destroy perfectly good taxa. But such inefficiency is to
> be expected when governmental funding agencies tend to favor those who
> attack paraphyly.  It is no wonder PhyloCode is so controversial (even
> among cladists).
>
>                ----------------Ken
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen
> Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:07 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Elimination of paraphyly: sensible or not?
>
> Hi all,
> I have been giving some thought to the cladistic obsession of eliminating
> paraphyly in taxonomic classification. For many taxa (above species), the
> subtaxa consist of one or more clearly monophyletic groups, plus a possibly
> paraphyletic residue (i.e. no apomorphies to bind the residue together into
> a monophylum). So, if we must eliminate paraphyly (or possible paraphyly),
> the only options are to either: (1) subsume the monophyletic subtaxa into
> the paraphyletic residue; or (2) break up the paraphyletic residue into
> monophyletic subtaxa. Effectively the two options may actually be
> equivalent. An example might help to illustrate my point. Let's take a
> simplistic view of reptiles as scaly tetrapods, birds as feathery winged
> bipeds derived from reptiles, and mammals as hairy tetrapods derived from
> reptiles. So, amniotes (reptiles, birds and mammals) are a monophyletic
> group, as are birds and also mammals, but not reptiles (reptiles being the
> "paraphyletic residue"). We wish to retain birds and also mammals as useful
> monophyletic taxa, for obvious reasons. So, what to do? Luckily, within
> reptiles there are some monophyletic subgroups of sufficient diversity to
> be useful, but this might not have been the case if all reptiles were just
> basically "skinks", with only species or perhaps also generic differences
> between them. Had this been so, amniotes would have to be taxonomically
> split between numerous (maybe hundreds) virtually identical taxa of
> "skinks", plus birds and also mammals as just two taxa at the same level
> (not necessarily a ranked level, but direct child taxa of amniotes). Would
> this be a useful classification of amniotes? I suggest that it would be far
> more useful to recognise a single paraphyletic taxon of reptiles (all the
> "skinks" in the hypothetical example), plus birds and also mammals (i.e.
> just 3 direct child taxa of amniotes). I wonder for plants, fungi and also
> invertebrates, if there might be many taxa analogous to the above
> hypothetical example, with a paraphyletic residue consisting of hundreds of
> "skinks", but also with just one or two very distinct and diverse
> monophyletic subtaxa? If so, would it be sensible to eliminate paraphyly or
> best just to live with a known paraphyletic residue as a unified subtaxon?
> Given the amount of limited resources which are being allocated to projects
> to eliminate paraphyly, to the detriment of alpha taxonomy, it would be
> nice to think that there was a clearly good reason for the elimination of
> paraphyly, but I'm not so sure that there is! The usual argument seems to
> be that you cannot make meaningful predictions from paraphyletic taxa, but
> how much biology does rely on the making of predictions based on taxon
> membership, and what proportion of those predictions end up being true
> anyway? For example, you might predict that a newly discovered braconid is
> a parasitoid, but a few braconids are phytophagous anyway. So, I guess that
> the main question that I am posing is whether we think that the benefits of
> monophyly justify the spending of so much limited resources on the
> elimination of paraphyly? Perhaps the elimination of paraphyly is being
> driven instead by economic factors, doing phylogenies being a more cost
> efficient way for institutional scientists to spend their time on than
> alpha taxonomy?
> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia Eckel, Taxacom began its
> peripatetic existence on ...
>
>
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> [http://taxacom.markmail.org/images/hdi_office.gif]<http://
> taxacom.markmail.org/>
>
> Taxacom Home - MarkMail - Community libraries<http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> >
> taxacom.markmail.org
> MarkMail is developed and hosted by MarkLogic Corporation. MarkMail is a
> free service for searching mailing list archives, with huge advantages over
> traditional ...
>
>
>
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> 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 Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia Eckel, Taxacom began its
> peripatetic existence on ...
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>