[Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Fri Feb 18 17:52:59 CST 2011
Curtis, you say there is no point to arguing with me because 1. I rule out as not science any playing field you choose and 2. I attribute to you lapses.
Note that your response to my argument accused me of a Departure from Biology, which I believe is an axiom or at least a scary pronouncement, and you ignored my theory of how genera might evolve, which is an avoidance of theory typical of structuralist nonscience. Also, I will play on any playing field (i.e. discuss constructively any alternative theory) but that of structuralism (such as theory-free discovery-process analysis).
Lapses are fine. If theory is argued, then human lapses are common and a (annoying) part of science. I know of no scientist who likes lapses but we tolerate them as part of the process of humans hashing out alternative theories. You probably did not mean lapses, and if I have harped in the past on a theme based on some word you may have inadvertantly used instead of a more appropriate word, I apologize.
You could have said, well, give me an example of a genus that has apparently evolved. Or given me an example of a genus that cannot evolve because of some feature. Features requiring stasis in diagnosis over time would be interesting because they imply the existence of features or absence thereof that encourage change in diagnosis over time.
This requires attention to data that are not caulistically uninformative.
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Curtis Clark
Sent: Fri 2/18/2011 4:51 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Order Campanulales (worth maintaining?)
On 2011-02-18 12:41, Richard Zander wrote:
> Thus, genera evolve. Ditto families.
Do split genera evolve faster or slower than lumped ones?
I have no quibble with the idea that entities more inclusive than
species evolve. But to say that genera evolve (in the evolutionary, not
historical circumscriptive or nomenclatural sense) seems to me a
departure from biology.
> Demonstrate to me why I am wrong, you who disagree enough to say so,
> and not by mapping traits onto a cladogram or ad hoc axioms. That is
> not science.
There's no point. You will rule out as "not science" any playing field
that I choose, and attribute to me a variety of lapses, only some of
which I may have made.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <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