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
Subject: Re: Understanding evolution problems

Nice point, but "our discipline"? "Systematics" is now phylogenetics and
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
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
Res Botanica:

-----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
Paraphyly Is Anathema.  I really really resent people who act as though
discipline has reached a concensus on this point and present our
that way to the outside world.  That is rank dishonesty.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list