Understanding evolution problems

Mary Barkworth Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU
Thu Mar 4 10:35:16 CST 2004


And taxonomists do not ignore the findings of phylogeneticists, but I am
not ready to buy that systematics = phylogenetics, one reason being that
it narrows the interpretation of systemtics, unacceptably narrows it in
my opinion.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On
Behalf Of Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:31 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Understanding evolution problems


Nice point, but "our discipline"? "Systematics" is now phylogenetics and
its
application to classification. The best phylogeneticists are also good
taxonomists, but Lammers' point remains valid.

______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180
Fax: 314-577-9595
Websites
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/index.htm




-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas G. Lammers [mailto:lammers at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Cc: taxacom at usobi.org
Subject: Re: Understanding evolution problems


At 08:57 AM 3/4/04, you wrote:
>I wonder what an alternative Web site presenting the same topics as the
>Berkeley site might look like?

As a bare minimum, it would be intellectually honest and admit that not
everyone in the systematics community has sworn allegiance to the idea
that
Paraphyly Is Anathema.  I really really resent people who act as though
our
discipline has reached a concensus on this point and present our
discipline
that way to the outside world.  That is rank dishonesty.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list