Cladomaleosauria (was: Understanding evolution problems)

Ken Kinman kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Tue Mar 16 14:23:12 CST 2004

      I wouldn't make that extrapolation either.  I'm just trying to document what I have experienced-----that the percentage of female systematists overall seems to exceed that of female strict cladists, and it becomes even more glaringly apparent when you look at the strictest of cladists (the phylocoders) where the percentage of females seems very low.
      If one were to take a poll of systematists on whether we should allow paraphyletic taxa in our classifications, I bet the percentage of women in favor would be higher than the percentage of men (and that both percentages would be much higher than strict cladists would like).  I think females (on average) tend to be a little better at seeing sister groups as what they should be (a useful methodology), but that there is nothing unnatural about mother taxa giving rise to daughter taxa.  I bet a higher percentage of female systematics professors would present this alternate viewpoint in their classes.
                 ------- Ken Kinman
From:  Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>

I certainly would hesitate to make the extrapolation that the F/M ratio among systematists (or even strict cladists) in general is similar to that of proponents of phylocode.
Ken Kinman wrote:
> Curtis,
>      Well, I was talking about "strict cladists", not the wider group of systematists who use cladistic analysis (of which I am myself a member).  But if you want some hard evidence of what I am talking about, I would suggest looking at the last version of the PhyloCode (Sept. 2003).  Note that both primary authors are male (100%) and of the 26 members of the Advisory Group, 25 are males (over 96%).
>           --------- Ken Kinman
> *********************************************************

More information about the Taxacom mailing list