[Taxacom] On genera

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 19:25:10 CDT 2013


If only to be one of those "well funded" cladists.

John Grehan


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>wrote:

> Stephen:
>
>
>
> Only with "some" taxa I said. I have to reply that it is a straw man to
> imply I implied it applied across the board. This kind of talking past
> each other starts arguments, and we don't want that on Taxacom, right?
> No, no.
>
>
>
> The gist of this short exchange merely reveals the depth of dependence
> on mechanical classification entrenched in taxonomic thought. If
> evolution is to be a major element in classification, hypotheses are
> needed and that takes imagination and willingness to advance
> nonphylogenetic hypotheses in the face of an army of well-funded
> cladists.
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> ____________________________
> 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>
> UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Richard Zander; JF Mate; Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera
>
>
>
> >A genus may be defined, at least for some taxa, as a set of closely
> related species that evolves as a group<
>
>
>
> Sounds like a recipe for multitudes of monotypic genera!!
>
>
>
> From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
> To: JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>; Taxacom
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013 8:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera
>
>
>
> Yes, "Others may disagree."
>
> A genus may be defined, at least for some taxa, as a set of closely
> related species that evolves as a group. Perhaps they all seem move in
> response to environmental change (say, all the cold-climate species die
> out, which changes the circumscription of the genus). Or perhaps one
> ancestral species gave rise to many specialized species. One CAN make
> good hypotheses based on data that may be non-phylogenetically
> informative.
>
> These less than exact definitions should be considered because
> cladistics cannot determine monophyly since no ancestral nodes are
> named. Phylogenetic monophyly then is done by definition, not by
> empirical inference; that is, every clade is monophyletic, period.
>
> What drives people to accept this nonsense?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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