[Taxacom] base alignment

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Tue Aug 29 09:34:23 CDT 2006


Peter and Pierre are focused on arguments about vocabulary. I am just
being forthright about my position as is Pierre about his. I am
conceding that my usage of terminology may be out of step with popular
use. If popular use sets the standards then I am in the wrong. If that
is what science is all about then it cannot evolve. I have been labeled
as being outdated because my views on cladistics are more like those of
Hennig and Nelson. I remain, yours truly, outdated.

John Grehan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Hovenkamp, P. (Peter)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:15 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] base alignment
> 
> John Grehan wrote:
> >
> > I can't be bothered. Maybe you are right and there is no one else
say
> it
> > like I do. I don't really care. The real issue is whether there is
> more
> > cladistic evidence for the human-orangutan relationship than the
> > human-chimpanzee relationship. Everyone is free to analyze this
> problem
> > with whatever terminology and algorithm they prefer.
> >
> > But for
> > > everybody I know "phenetic" means classifying on the basis of
> overall
> > > similarity of taxa, not selecting compatible characters.
> >
> > I agree with this definition. And according to that definition
> cladistic
> > analysis of molecular characters appears to be an analysis of
> characters
> > established through overall similarity of base substitutions and
gaps.
> >
> > Others who are computationally advanced might also find my positions
> on
> > cladistic theory to be algorithmically naive. Perhaps so. In the end
> it
> > is the empirical data that will have to be addressed, and for the
> > orangutan question this has hardly begun. So far I have not had any
> > responses to the Mona Lisa paper saying that the analysis of
evidence
> is
> > garbage or that my observations about questions in molecular
analysis
> > are demonstrably wrong.
> 
> Maybe people just can't be bothered. Possibly they don't really care
how
> Schtroumpfs schtroumpf their characters or smurf their schtroumpfs
(this
> being the vocabulary I'm happy with as it is).
> 
> Schtroumpf!
> 
> 
> Peter Hovenkamp
> Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden branch
> www.nationaalherbarium.nl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom



More information about the Taxacom mailing list