[Taxacom] classification of Class Rosopsida

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Fri Apr 10 06:52:33 CDT 2009

I've also raised this point with Ken who has declined to present the
nature of evidence for his choices. The absence of the evidence does
render the classification problematic with respect to whether it is
science or alchemy - the former being about evidence, the other being
about belief. So I think Kirk's comparison was less abut insult as it
was to get to the core issue. What would be 'insulting' to science would
be the withholding of evidence. It would be like my saying that humans
and orangutans form a sister clade, but you have to take my word for it
based on my years of analysis or consideration of other researchers. Ken
may have come up with some insightful arrangements, but at the moment it
is not possible to see if that is the case.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mario Blanco
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] classification of Class Rosopsida
> Ken,
> I don't want to sound cynical, but if you want your classification to
> widely accepted, then why don't you actually publish it? You know that
> most scientists won't pay serious attention to your classification
> unless it is published in a scientific journal or book. In such a
> you can elaborate more on your arguments to convince the readers. Like
> Jim, I don't see where your evidence comes from. You might know it,
> you don't let us see it. You don't even cite a single source. Your
> assertion "I've put a great deal of thought and time over the last 15
> years into angiosperm classification in particular" doesn't show us
> evidence, and again, is simply an argument that invokes authority
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). You won't convince
> scientists this way.
> Plus, if you have coined names for new groups, these are not valid
> unless they have been properly distributed in printed matter (Art. 29
> the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature):
> -Mario
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[Taxacom] classification of Class Rosopsida
> Date: 	Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:29:13 -0500
> From: 	kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> To: 	taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Dear All,
>        To answer Jim's questions, I would dismiss the third
> research or alchemy?) as somewhat insulting and not worth a response.
> The second is obvious, my classifications always aim toward a
> "consensus" among a wide variety of "experts" (which also tends to
> end users who are not experts).
>        The first question (evidence, or just looks better) is the most
> interesting.  I don't think it is necessarily appropriate or
> advantageous to assume that the question or answer should be
> "either/or".  Anyone who closely evaluates my classification would
> realize it is based on a wide range of evidence (not only the
> cladistically important evidence, but plesiomorphies and
> ancestor-descendant relationships as well, and carefully considering
> whether some are questionable as to whether they are really
> plesiomorphic or synapomorphic).
>        That it "looks better", is more concise, and heuristically
> as much information as possible, are all benefits that I have found
> be derived from this type of cladisto-eclectic classification.  I've
> a great deal of thought and time over the last 15 years into
> classification in particular.  Of the three angiopserm Classes that I
> now recognize (Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, and Rosopsida), the
> is the most challenging.  I make no apologies for attempting a
> classification, and I believe it will convince both traditionalists
> strict cladists to slowly modify their classifications in a way that
> brings them closer to one another (even though a single, wide-used
> consensus classification may not emerge for another decade or two).
>           -------Ken Kinman
> P.S. As for the term "systematist", I don't think that should be
> restricted to just those who concentrate on "cladistic
> alone.  The latter is a specialty that has been given too much
> in the past couple of decades, and that true classificationists
> various people might define that category) have increasingly become a
> minority.  Hopefully that trend will soon cease and reverse itself, so
> that such specialties can work together rather than being at cross
> purposes.
> ,---------------------------------------------------
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:
> Jim,
> Your very pertinent questions relate to the fact that many of us
> in systematization, not classification. I'm a systematist, not a
> classificationist. There's a profound difference.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Croft wrote:
> > Evidence?  Or does it just 'look better'?
> >
> > Expert community compromise consensus?  Or personal divine
> >revelation?
> >
> > Scientific research?  Or Alchemy?
> >
> > The answer to these questions is VERY important.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

More information about the Taxacom mailing list