[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)

Dan Lahr dlahr at ib.usp.br
Fri Oct 30 12:47:55 CDT 2015


Hi Jason,

"Dan, if we accept that "Classifications are arbitrary, and are thus
used (cited) in ways to please
one's own taste." then " accepting paraphyletic groups is simply
absurd in my view." does not follow."

Really? It is my taste! Follows perfectly... I find it absurd and thus I
don't cite it.

However, my taxonomic experience is not with hyper-diverse groups.  I can
see how it may be sensible in some world that paraphyletic groupings are
accepted for things such as insects - Ken does aptly name his proposition
"eclectic".

cheers,

__________________________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr
PhD, Assist. Prof.
Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948
http://www.ib.usp.br/zoologia/lahr/


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 3:33 PM, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dan, if we accept that "Classifications are arbitrary, and are thus
> used (cited) in ways to please
> one's own taste." then " accepting paraphyletic groups is simply
> absurd in my view." does not follow.
>
> I find that stem/paraphyletic groups tend to be less agressively
> dispised in taxa with either a good fossil record or insects. As long
> as they are flagged as such they are more useful than 10 monotypic
> genera created to keep a crown clade. Maybe when the pendulum swings
> back from the current splitting spree we can have a sensible
> classification that is cladistically congruent as well. IMO.
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list