Predictivity vs Useful

Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Thu Feb 17 08:58:29 CST 2005


Support for emphasizing morphological data that supports molecular data vs
that which does not does not come from calling another scientist a cynic,
suggesting that statistics is a polemic, or calling on those of similar
mindset to be strong. The problem is scientific and interesting.

______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group, Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
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://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/index.htm
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110 USA


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stevens [mailto:peter.stevens at MOBOT.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:07 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Predictivity vs Useful


Indeed.  And I had already replied privately to Barry as follows:

>Absolutely!  But I can imagine a cynic's response - what about
>petiole anatomy (e.g.), what about flowers (which i could not look
>at for Peridiscaceae), etc.  But then one invokes yet other
>characters, and one might get involved in the molecules/morphology
>debate/polemics.  It is a grand life if you don't weaken.


P.

>One must be wary of ascribing consilience to morphological traits that are
>discovered to happen to agree with molecular data when there exist possibly
>equal numbers of traits that do not agree (conformance rationalization) and
>support other arrangements. Jinking from one set of traits to another is
>okay if one set can be discounted in some way (e.g. statistically).
>Otherwise, the contrary sets remain to annoy.
>
>___________




More information about the Taxacom mailing list