[Taxacom] On genera

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jul 14 19:43:31 CDT 2013


> "well funded" cladists<
 
I think he must mean "big bummed" (fundament), from sitting around all day!


________________________________
From: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
To: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> 
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>; Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] On genera



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