[Taxacom] APG III genus list

Robinwbruce at aol.com Robinwbruce at aol.com
Mon Sep 5 06:30:23 CDT 2011


I do not think it is as simple as that, Richard.  You suggest  a lineage 
changes by anagenesis and macroevolution- so we have evolution by  a little 
change (evolution by creep?), and evolution by a big change  (evolution by 
carnage?)?  Hmmm.  But it is all evolution? Hmmm. Then  we have evolutionary 
monophyly; as opposed to what - classical monophyly?  non-evolutionary 
monophyly (surely an oxymononic construction)?, some -other-  sort- of monophyly, 
yet to be specified? Hmmm.
 
I think I share your exasperation with monophyly as an explanation  for, 
and classificatory principle of, life's variety. But cladistics  seems to be a 
medicine, albeit perhaps only a placebo or at best a palliative,  and not 
the cause of the disorder. The disorder seems to me to be due to  overdosing 
on phylogeny, the underlying ideology.
 
Somewhere in the parish records of biology there are accounts of phylogeny  
stifling research 100 years ago;
plus ca change....?
 
 
Robin
 
   
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/2011 3:16:00 P.M. GMT Daylight Time,  
Richard.Zander at mobot.org writes:
 
 
Actually, that’s a  fine comment, Robin. If a lineage changes not only 
anagenetally but also by  serial macroevolutionary events, then one cannot use 
evolutionary monophyly as  a principle of classification. Evolutionary 
monophyly is a guide to genetic  continuity, which helps interpret present-day 
nesting of both classical  taxonomy and cladistics. A clade can indeed belong 
to different families  following Woodger’s Paradox in the evolutionary sense. 
(So much for clades . .  .  : ) 
R. 
 
* * * * * * * * * * *  *
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO  63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: _http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/_ 
(http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/)  and  
_http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm_ (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm) 
Modern Evolutionary  Systematics Web site: 
_http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm_ (http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm) 
 
  
____________________________________
 
From:  Robinwbruce at aol.com [mailto:Robinwbruce at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 3:52  PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc:  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] APG III genus  list
 
Richard
 

 
Alternatively one  could try to address Woodger's paradox, but that would 
entail viewing  organisms generatively and not historically; hence I will not 
hold my  breathe.
 

 
Robin
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
In a message dated  9/3/2011 7:22:23 P.M. GMT Daylight Time, 
Richard.Zander at mobot.org  writes:

I'm glad you  asked, Phil. What it comes down to is should a
classification be informed  by descent with modification, namely one
taxon generating another taxon,  i.e. macroevolution, OR not? 

The Linnaean system of nested  categories does not represent well either
inferred present-day clades or  inferred sequences of taxic changes
through time, so there is no Right  Classification to shoot for, just an
approximation of a cladistic tree or  a Besseyan cactus using nested
relationships. Of course one might invent  a Macroevocode to compete with
the Phylocode. Hmmmmm . . .  



* * * * * * * * * * * *
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 Jenkins, Philip
D - (pjenkins)
Sent: Friday, September  02, 2011 8:09 PM
To: Tom Wendt; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject:  Re: [Taxacom] APG III genus list

Hi,Tom, Phil here,

I know  that Our Herb has switched to the APGIII order of things, right
or worng.  We had the confinence that APG's order might be close, if not
exactly,  the arrangement. We thught it close enough that we believed no
huge  exceptions occur in the future . No huge shuffles, in
practilicality. We  may be wrong or OK, to some degree that we kind of
believe that the  molecular botanists are on some kind of lasting trail.
But who knows?  

_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a  Google search specified as:   
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms  here






More information about the Taxacom mailing list