[Taxacom] On genera, splitting and ranking

Chris Thompson xelaalex at cox.net
Sat Jul 13 14:20:04 CDT 2013


Sorry, Ken,

Perhaps there may be lots more genera of prokaryotes to be recognized depending on whether those groups are really that old. Yes, the clade as a whole maybe old, but the groups that exist today may be very recent.

And that is NOT “absurd” as it immediately tell you that these are really old groups.

Yes, we would have our status reduced in the sense many more species would be included in the genus Homo

or we could change the age criterion so there would be many more genera recognized for Drosophila groups, like Sophophora for melanogaster.

BUT the result would be scientific units useful for comparison.

This exchange began with the question of what is a genus. And yes, your answer of what ever any one wants to call a genus is a genus is fine, but it isn’t science nor very useful.

But as I said as Hennig long ago recognized, there is no Science in taxonomic classifications just subjective opinions.

Oh, well ... 

Chris



From: Ken Kinman 
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 3:01 PM
To: Chris Thompson ; Kim van der Linde ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] On genera, splitting and ranking

Hi Chris,
 
           Well, the fossil record of prokaryotes goes back billions of years, so if there are prokaryotic genera that old, why is it useful to maintain a much younger genus Drosophila?    If you have a consistent yardstick across all living organisms, all the vertebrates would probably end up in one genus.  Then you would need a bunch of new infrageneric ranks just to classify vertebrates.  
 
           Thus, applying a consistent yardstick would destroy the utility of our classifications.  And basing the yardstick on Homo or even Drosophila wouldn't help, because the number of prokaryotic taxa and ranks would explode to an absurd degree.  Either way it would lead to either absurd splitting or lumping, so one clearly needs periodic anagenetic breaks to maintain the utility of classifications.  
 
                    ------------------Ken
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

> From: xelaalex at cox.net
> To: kim at kimvdlinde.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:46:46 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera, splitting and ranking
> 
> Ken:
> 
> As for the genus Homo, tell me what you believe the oldest fossil indication 
> of this group is.
> 
> Then tell me why it is useful to maintain this as a "genus," when there are 
> currently accepted genera millions of years older, such as Drosophila.
> 
> Yes, Kim:
> 
> Smaller organisms can have many more generations within the same time span.
> 
> But what we are looking for is a SCIENTIFIC, consistent, measure 
> (yard-stick) with which to compare things.
> 
> So, one could say perhaps that the species in the genus Mus (mice) do in 
> fact breed more frequently than those in the genus Homo (humans, etc.) do, 
> but given that these "genera" represents the same amount of time (same age 
> of origin, etc.), then that becomes a useful hypothesis to further 
> investigate, such as why? More offspring or is investment in few offspring a 
> better strategy for success?
> 
> Today, unfortunately as there is no scientific basis for ranking, we can not 
> make any kind of scientific hypotheses about evolution or anything else on 
> the basis of taxonomic units.
> 
> Ask the question of why there is some 2000 species in the genus Drosophila 
> and less than a dozen (or less, depending on how one counts fossils, etc.) 
> in the genus Homo, one can not say except that the definition of these 
> genera are completely different and are merely subjective.
> 
> Yes, Ernst Mayr responded to Hennig by saying that ranking should reflect 
> "anagensis," not "cladogensis," etc. And therefore, it was proper to put Man 
> (Homo sapiens) in its own genus, family, order, etc., while Drosophila 
> melanogaster was place merely as one of hundred of species of fruit flies. 
> Obviously, man deserves special treatment given how far he has advanced over 
> all other life, etc. The only problem with this "anagenetic" approach is 
> defining a consistent unbiased measure of evolutionary "improvement," etc.
> 
> Sorry, but Hennig was right in linking rank of categories to age of origin. 
> That proposal if it has been implemented would have given a minimal 
> scientific basis for higher categories.
> 
> And these initial responses reveal what Hennig correctly realized a 
> half-century ago, that is, there is NO science in taxonomic classification, 
> and NO one will accept changing that.
> 
> Oh, well ...
> 
> Chris
> 
> from home
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Kim van der Linde
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:05 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera, splitting and ranking
> 
> I think age is a useless criterion, because it assumes two things:
> 
> 1. Age == evolution
> 2. Same age == same number of generations
> 
> Obviously, a shorter generation time implies more generations and thus
> more genetic change. Evolution and change depends not only in the number
> of generations, but also on the need to adapt to novel situations,
> bottlenecks, and a load of other mechanisms that affect the realized change.
> 
> I think that what we are doing now is mostly perfectly fine.
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> On 7/13/2013 10:38 AM, Frank.Krell at dmns.org wrote:
> > "Yes, Hennig once did propose a testable criterion for rank, that is, age 
> > of origin. However, everyone, including Hennig himself, rejected that 
> > criterion."
> >
> > Chris, would you remind me where he did so? I just cannot remember that he 
> > did, but it is long ago that I read all his theoretical works (in German).
> >
> > "Age is a wonderful and scientific criterion for rank. If we had such, 
> > then we could easily propose that higher Diptera (Cyclorrhapha, a 
> > suborder) is the same as birds (Aves, a Class) and far more diverse [Yes, 
> > the little creatures with narrow specialization generate more species, 
> > than larger more generalized predators, etc.]. But these kinds of 
> > scientific questions are not now possible due to the distorted system of 
> > classification we have and used."
> >
> > Isn't it amazing that a clear and useful criterion, probably the only 
> > phylogenetically justifiable criterion to define rank meets with so much 
> > resistance, rendering comparisons beyond one's small research domain so 
> > difficult?
> > Tradition (Aves is a class, Scarabaeidae is a family) is so much more 
> > important for emotionally heavily invested scientists than scientific 
> > reasoning.
> >
> > And, of course, we have many paraphyletic species, but we should not have 
> > paraphyletic higher taxa. There is no reason to let the pendulum swing 
> > back to pre-hennigian times.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > Dr. Frank-T. Krell
> > Curator of Entomology
> > Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
> > Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
> > Department of Zoology
> > Denver Museum of Nature & Science
> > 2001 Colorado Boulevard
> > Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
> > Frank.Krell at dmns.org
> > Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
> > Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
> > http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
> > lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
> > The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of 
> > critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as 
> > responsible stewards of the future.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive 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
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> 
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list