[Taxacom] Describing genera without molecular phyolgies

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Richard,

> Richard Pyle wrote "modern technology and biological insights have dramatically improved our 
> ability to infer phylogenetic relationships of organisms; and one could also (rightly) argue that 
> this leads to legitimate rejiggering of prior classifications."
> Not so. Modern classification should reflect evolutionary relationships. 
> Phylogenetics does not model evolution."  

So, your primary point of disagreement is that I used the expression "phylogenetic relationships", instead of "phylogenies"???  If so, then sure -- consider my sentence amended to:

"modern technology and biological insights have dramatically improved our ability to infer phylogenies of organisms"

Note that I never said or even intended to imply that we're in any way closer to inferring evolutionary relationships.  Although I think a pretty powerful case can be made for that assertion as well.

I'm pretty-much in agreement with everything else you wrote.  I just tend to be a little less grumpy (and less self-confident) about it.

> I am sorry to see classical taxonomists still worrying over the ascendancy 
> and hegemony of phylogenetics.

I consider myself a classical taxonomist, and I'm not worried.  Who is worried?  Are you worried?

Aloha,
Rich