paraphyly and polyphyly

Richard Jensen rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU
Wed Nov 10 14:38:22 CST 2004

I think the paper Tom Lammers is remembering was one written by George
Estabrook on the idea of "convex phenetics."
See Syst. Zool. 35: 560-570.  I also think it has merit.



"Thomas G. Lammers" wrote:

> At 01:17 PM 11/10/2004, Derek Sikes wrote:
> >I'm preparing to teach an introductory course in systematics and would
> >like to hear back on the following issue:
> It sounds to me as though you have a pretty good grasp on the subject.
> :-)
> I've often thought that a lot of the confusion stems from the idea that
> paraphyly is A Bad Thing rather than The Natural Order of Things, i.e., the
> pattern evolution most often creates.
> I recall a paper a number of years back that attempted to address some of
> these practical and philosophical concerns but describing groups as
> "convex" or "concave."  It didn't catch on, but I always thought there was
> some merit to the author's ideas.
> Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
> Department of Biology and Microbiology
> University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
> Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA
> e-mail:       lammers at
> phone:      920-424-1002
> fax:           920-424-1101
> Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
> biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
> Webpages:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> "Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
>                                                                -- Anonymous

Richard J. Jensen              | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology      | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         | e-mail: rjensen at
Notre Dame, IN 46556    |

More information about the Taxacom mailing list