No subject

Thomas Schlemmermeyer termites at USP.BR
Sun Sep 13 17:40:18 CDT 1998

colleagues, my time has come to throw in once more some bits into these
marvelous discussions.

Is the name of the list "Taxacom" , "Cladocom" or even "Mayrcom" ?

I got somewhat confused! Anyway, My very intention is to state that
phylogenetic taxonomy is not necessarily identical with cladistic
taxonomy, as Tom suggests in the following phrase:

> Resistance to a strictly
> phylogenetic taxonomy could
>perhaps be characterized as "cladophobia"; and explained as the rump end of the
>Darwinian transformation;

As it was already nicely put clear by a message within the thread "corrobation
of phylogenetic hypotheses" by Doug Yanega, the main problem of cladistic
methods is the homologization of characters, or, put in other words:
The primary homology assessment.

Assesssing primary homology is somewhat circular and proceeds on the ground
of former pre-existing hypotheses of primary homology.
Therefore, to some phylogeneticists it seems failed to construct character
matrices - These pretty nice tables which suggest that some 300 or even more
characters have been more or less completely checked for homology.

It is checking and rechecking in the light of pre-existing knowledge that makes
phylogenetic systematics advance. Not all the adepts of phylogenetics are
very convinced that one needs cladistics to make phylogenetics.

Maybe, the very nature of an evolutionary understanding of the world is in
contradiction with cladistics, evolution proceeds by small changes, and so
should we,

But haven't there been already some Paleophylogeneticists who
accused the cladists of Neocreationism?

       Sorry for my contribution and continue to have success with
       what you are doing,

More information about the Taxacom mailing list