[Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Fri Oct 30 12:59:52 CDT 2015
Angels dancing on pinheads in this thread.
I refer the discussion to the dissilient taxon concept. Any group that is clearly discernible as some central species/genus/family generating a cloud of radiative descendants is a non-arbitrary group deserving of a taxonomic name. Of course one must wrench one's mind away from the exact metaphysics of pure shared descent to the more down-to-earth and messy combination of shared and serial descent to identify such natural groups.
"Paraphyly" is just a shared descent code word for serial descent.
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110 – USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Lahr
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:48 PM
To: JF Mate
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] resend Kingdom Protista (and Subkingdom Chromista)
"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".
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.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
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