[Taxacom] New systematics book
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sun Sep 8 09:37:17 CDT 2013
Thanks for speaking for the list. I wasn't aware that Taxacomers agree
with you so fully.
So ... I should read all the cladistic literature, then I'll be a
cladist? I suggest you read my book, all the points made in the
cladistic literature are refuted therein. But I suppose you already know
that, given that the fatal flaws of phylogenetics are soooo evident, and
just won't accept it.
Monophyly? Cladistics recognizes evolutionarily nonmonophyletic groups
every time it lumps taxa or splits them based on a classification
principle, a cladistically redefined "monophyly" based on
"Personal aversion"? A lone voice in the wilderness blown away by the
great winds of cladistic revolution? Huh.
"Suck it up and get back to work"? Well, I've had 30 years of accepting
cladistics because I could not really figure out "what's wrong with
cladistics? Gotta be something but what the heck is it?" I've also
suggested a new way to get back to work using acceptable advances in
phylogenetics plus classical methods in my book, and I am certainly
Cladistics has led to "fantastic progress"? Yes, it has.
I detect annoyance. I apologize for my last message in which I got
carried away. I should not have mentioned that person (you are not
mentioning either) in such a manner.
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
From: Michael A. Ivie [mailto:mivie at montana.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 6:10 PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc: mivie at montana.edu; Ken Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New systematics book
I was rebuked off list for engaging you with my posts on this topic with
a rejoinder about pig singing. Therefore, it seems this is not a
discussion that interests the group. I made a joke, you took it
To answer your questions, you do not need any response from the list.
Please read Systematic Zoology, 1975-1992; Cladistics 1985 to date, and
Systematic Biology 1992- to date, as well as books by Wiley and others.
Your points are exhaustively and repeatedly addressed therein, although
sometimes intemperately and even occasionally rudely. However, you
probably, actually surely, know all that -- you just don't want to
You simply don't like classifications constrained by monophyly.
Sometimes, neither do I, probably at times virtually everyone feels that
way. Fine, propose classifications that are not based thereon. No one
will stop you, but you will be criticized by some, and many will not use
your classifications, big deal. Suck it up and get back to work like
However, this personal aversion of your does not require an entire book
to justify not liking monophyletic classifications. Preference is just
Just state you don't use monophyly. Do understand, however, your
aversion does nothing to negate the theory or operational methodology of
a minutely debated series of issues that led to something that is well
established to have given us a generation of fantastic progress in
understanding the evolution of life on earth.
P.S. birds are reptiles, get over it.
More information about the Taxacom