[Taxacom] Paraphyly again defended (and strict cladism promotes "disastrous nomenclatural practices)

[John Grehan]

Ken, when you say “It is true that non-cladists can also proliferate small
genera which lead to instability.” I would note that a proliferation of
small genera does not necessarily lead to instability. Instability, if that
is the right term, comes from unresolved phylogenetics – when there is not
a consistent result. Also, when you say “strict cladism generated a whole
new wave of such practices” this implies that the problem lies with
cladisti methodology which is just plain nonsense. There is also nothing in
cladistic methodology that necessarily generetates small taxa than any
other method.

'Needless' over-spitting is in the mind of the beholder. It is not science,
but a personal preference (an art if you like).

“More importantly, they point out that treating higher taxa (like Archaea
and Bacteria) as strictly monophyletic (holophyletic) is among the most
disastrous of nomenclatural practices.”

Your opinion is noted.

“It is among higher taxa that strict cladism is the most harmful.” -
harmful in what way?

“Thus by nitpicking on one particular statement, you seem to have deflected
attention from the greater problem (which is at taxonomic levels above the
family level)” It seems to me that there will always be problems at every
taxonomic level regardless of systematic methodology.

Cheers, John Grehan

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:13 PM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>       It is true that non-cladists can also proliferate small genera which
> lead to instability.  However, strict cladism generated a whole new wave of
> such practices.  Therefore, I disagree that the statement that you singled
> out is "nonsense".  What they state is true, even if some non-cladists have
> also needlessly over-split.
>        More importantly, they point out that treating higher taxa (like
> Archaea and Bacteria) as strictly monophyletic (holophyletic) is among the
> most disastrous of nomenclatural practices.  It is among higher taxa that
> strict cladism is the most harmful.  It is a huge problem compared to the
> splitting of genera.  Thus by nitpicking on one particular statement, you
> seem to have deflected attention from the greater problem (which is at
> taxonomic levels above the family level).
>                  ------------------Ken Kinman
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:24 PM
> To: Kenneth Kinman
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paraphyly again defended (and strict cladism
> promotes "disastrous nomenclatural practices)
>
> "This can result in a proliferation of small genera and instances of
> nomenclatural instability," - this is typical nonsense. One can have
> proliferation regardless of the systematic method. Making decisions as to
> how broad or narrow a group is going to be is not systematics.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:20 PM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com<mailto:
> kinman at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi All,
>       I just ran across this 2016 paper.  Yet another publication
> defending the reality and need for paraphyletic taxa (for a variety of
> reasons), and it labels strict cladism as promoting "disastrous
> nomenclatural practices":
>
> https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/ijsem/66/12/4924_ijsem001474.pdf?expires=1555377331&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=537594F4A96BABC3F0564A74650291D5
>
> Abstract:
> "Yeast systematics has wholeheartedly embraced the phylogenetic approach.
> Central to this has been the unspoken convention that taxa at all ranks be
> strictly monophyletic. This can result in a proliferation of small genera
> and instances of nomenclatural instability, counter to the expected benefit
> of phylogenetic systematics. But the literature abounds with examples, at
> all taxonomic levels, where paraphyly is a reality that can no longer be
> ignored. The very concepts of Bacteria or Archaea, under the constraint of
> monophyly, are in peril. It is therefore desirable to effect a shift in
> practices that will recognize the existence of paraphyletic taxa."
>
> Another Quote from the articles:
> "Taxonomy sits at an ill-defined confluence of science, craft, ontology
> and the law. Conscientious systematists aim at making sense of the living
> world by organizing species into categories that are meaningful not only to
> themselves, but also to other biologists and the rest of humanity. The last
> decades have seen undue emphasis placed on creating categories that reflect
> an erroneous model of cladogenesis, one that is strictly dichotomous and
> symmetrical. A large proportion of taxa arise not by fission of an
> ancestral progenitor, but by a budding process that leaves the progenitor
> enriched by the presence of its offspring. The retention of cohesive parent
> taxa under a single designation, at the same rank as progeny taxa, has the
> potential to prevent disastrous nomenclatural practices."
>
>                 ------------------------Ken Kinman
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>