[Taxacom] Paraphyletic species and paraphyletic higher taxa
murrellze at appstate.edu
Tue Jan 4 17:07:30 CST 2011
In fact, Darwin's figure is very different from a Besseyian cactus in
the that the vertical axis is clearly delineated as the time axis, and
the figure also attempts to depict both extinctions and extant lineages.
Richard Zander wrote:
> Phylogenetic trees are not reconstructions of evolution, they are structures of data. Darwin produced a theory of evolution from structures of data, involving informal clustering. Phylogeneticists refuse to produce theories of evolution of descent with modification particular to cluster-produced structures of information about some group.
> There is one diagram in the Origin of Species. It is more like a Besseyan cactus than a cladogram.
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 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 Richard Jensen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:43 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paraphyletic species and paraphyletic higher taxa
> Besides, just because my analysis suggests that group A is a
> monophyletic, that doesn't mean it really is. Just that the data on hand suggest it is. By what criterion do I know that the reconstruction is accurate?
> Dick J
> 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
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom