[Taxacom] Cladifications are NOT classifications (MonaLisadrooling)

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 1 21:49:38 CDT 2006

    I completely agree that it depends on the method of analysis (including 
character selection, weighting, and especially proper phylogenetic rooting). 
  Producing a consensus classification of birds (especially fossil taxa) was 
extremely difficult.  There are many dozens of competing cladograms for all 
the various sections of the phylogeny for taxa in the increasingly long 
dinosaur to bird transition.

     But frankly, this pales in comparison to the problems I have predicted 
in the classification of molluscs (and gastropods in particular).  
Relatively speaking, one needs to TOTALLY rerooted those phylogenies and 
produce classifications which will be COMPLETELY different from ANY produced 
in the past.  Mollusc phylogenies and classifications are a total nightmare, 
so much so that even the problematic arthropods take a second seat in how 
totally messed up their phylogenies currently are.
   ----Ken Kinman
>From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at yahoo.com>
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Cladifications are NOT classifications 
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
>"Edwards, G.B." <edwardg at doacs.state.fl.us> wrote:    I agree. In fact, 
>after reading the exchanges on this subject, it seems
>that 'classification' will be a never ending source of controversy. So
>why don't we just forget it, and let the 'phylogeny' fall where it may
>with the available data.
>   As appealing as the idea is, the (estimate of) phylogeny does not just 
>fall where it may, but depends on the method of analysis.  Or am I missing 
>some semi-facetiousness here?
>   Barry Roth

Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

More information about the Taxacom mailing list