[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphologicalcharacters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sat Nov 17 11:24:23 CST 2012


Kirk:

I stand by my "deduction" statement, following the dictionary definition
that a conclusions follows necessarily from the stated premise, from
general to specific.

In this case, the premises are merely false.

Richard 

____________________________
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
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kirk Fitzhugh
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:41 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for
morphologicalcharacters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Dick, your concern for the importance of causality in science is on the
mark. John, I have no idea what you mean by trying to equate the concern
for causality that pervades all sciences as equating the just 'telling
stories.' Richard, your characterization of deduction does not conform
with the rules for valid deduction; i.e. deduction is immaterial to the
topic at hand, as I have pointed out numerous times in my publications.

Kirk

--

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of Richard Zander
[Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:56 AM
To: Richard Jensen; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
characters      -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Dick:
I don't think that "botanists are constructing causal explanations for
the patterns that we see." Botanists are deducing causal explanations
from the clustering we see. The deduction is from an axiomatic
assumption that close clustering means close phylogenetic relationship.
This may be only obliquely true.

Take the example of a taxon near the base of a morphological cladogram.
It is similar to other taxa near the base of the cladogram in having
plesiomorphic traits. It turns up deeply nested in a molecular cladogram
of the same taxa, nowhere near the similar taxa in the morphological
cladogram.

A deduction is that the morphological cladogram is wrong. An inference
is that both cladograms are right, and the deeply nested taxon in the
molecular cladogram is ancestral to all the lineages distal to its
position in the morphological cladogram. With this induction, we have
lots of abduced evolutionary scenarios to test. With deduction, the
"explanation" is a might circular.

Richard

____________________________
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
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:03 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Kirk,

Don't the branching patterns we see in cladograms (or the nested sets we
see in phenograms) imply a cause?  These groups exist for a reason - we
have identified characters and examined the distributions of characters
to determine if there are patterns.  We could argue that these patterns
are just chance consequences of developmental processes, but I would
like to believe that these patterns have a causal basis.  Our
recognition of, say, Spermatophyta (the seed plants) is based on our
understanding that these plants share an evolutionary history reflected
in their reproductive (and other) structures.  By examining the fossil
record and using the tools of evo-devo, botanists are constructing
causal explanations for the patterns we see.

Dick J

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________

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