[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)

Pierre Deleporte pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr
Wed Feb 16 11:00:07 CST 2011

I think that putting all "phylogenetics" in the same structuralist bag 
is a very confusing idea

I agree with your global rejection of purely structural, pretendedly 
tree-building (cladogrametics?) and tree-use (strict "pattern" 
classifications of all sorts)

just-so classifications make no biological sense,
and searchingt for some possible interpretation afterwards is at best a 
waste of time:
we should better think of what we intend to mean from the beginning
(as Kirk Fitzhugh did put it, if I remember well)

but I understand perfectly that all "phylogeneticians" will not agree
to be indiscriminately accused of ignoring evolutionary theories and models

the real scientific world out there is not like that


Le 16/02/2011 16:45, Richard Zander wrote:
> John Grehan is quite right about this. The marketplace of ideas relies
> on weighing alternative theories. Repeat, theories. Not choice of a
> belief system.
> Phylogenetics uses the structuralist approach, with cladograms being
> lemmas and classifications theorems, deductively mapped to the
> cladograms. Thus, all non-monophyly must be due to convergence because
> there are no allowable alternative theories that can be dealt with by
> sister-group analysis.
> Dick Jensen is also right that you can believe in evidence (i.e.
> evidentiary empirical science) or choose to believe in APG II (i.e.
> structuralist axiomatics).
> I'm trying to get a paper published on structuralism in phylogenetics.
> It is difficult. When reviewers are phylogeneticists, they go ape shit.
> See
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/EvSy/SciMathPhylog.htm
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6e7woy4
> for an excerpt.
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites:http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/  and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 7:35 AM
> To:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)
> But that's the way it's always been in taxonomy, or probably anything
> else for that matter. Preferences are made with respect to
> interpretations of evidence. Where the evidence is unambiguous the
> preference will likely be a consensus. Where the evidence has some level
> of ambiguity there will not be a consensus, but likely two or more
> preferences among groups involved. Sometimes the majority group does
> indeed dominate. This is demonstrated extremely well in human origins
> where the overwhelming majority prefer the molecular sequence evidence
> rather than the morphogenetic evidence.
> John Grehan
> _______________________________________________
> 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