[Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Nov 29 18:28:29 CST 2016

Except that you could see it as tectonics helping to confirm (or refute) individual phylogenetic hypotheses. The key word here is "individual". The fact that many phylogenetic hypotheses may be confirmed by tectonics doesn't tell you anything about those phylogenetic hypotheses which haven't yet been tested.
On Wed, 30/11/16, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to "birds'?
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Kenneth Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>, "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 1:15 PM
 Rich might
 have a different opinion, but I think they come close as we
 can to facts. Otherwise the results would be meaningless
 regarding biogeography. The fact that time and again
 phylogenetic arrangements match tectonic structures (often
 in surprising detail) shows that there is indeed something
 beyond mere hypotheses in the more vacuous sense.
 John Grehan
 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at
 7:07 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Yes, one major problem involves people trying to
 "formalize" every phylogenetic hypothesis into a
 classification! I'm really confused about one major and
 fundamental issue relating to phylogenies, which has
 considerable bearing on this issue. Are phylogenies merely
 hypotheses (to be tested, which is an ongoing process
 without a clear endpoint) or are they already the nearest
 things we can get to "facts"? If they are merely
 hypotheses, then it makes little or no sense to use them to
 alter classifications.
 ------------------------------ --------------
 On Wed, 30/11/16, Richard Pyle
 <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What taxon corresponds to
  To: "'John Grehan'" <calabar.john at gmail.com>,
 "'Kenneth Kinman'" <kinman at hotmail.com>
  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  Received: Wednesday, 30 November, 2016, 12:16 PM
  > I have seem
  > innumerable molecular phylogenies
  generating many branching points
  involving many taxa, but as long as the tree is presented
  am not sure what
  > you see to be so
  complicated or splintered. With respect to splintered
  > saying some phylogenetic
  relationships should remain unresolved so the
  > pattern is 'simple'?
  I can't answer for Ken,
  but one point I have been making for many years is that
  you want to represent inferred evolutionary
  among organisms, then cladograms and similar
  diagrams are an extremely effective tool for
  them.  I think the problem happens when people have
  to use a hierarchcal classification and nomenclatural
  originally developed by a creationist (aka, Linnean
  nomenclature) as a system explicitly for communicating
  hypothesized inferred evolutionary relationships. 
  names and classifications have a history spanning more
  two and a half centuries (a century before Darwin), and
  benefit to some degree on stability of usage over time.
  Thus, let's use line
  drawings like cladograms to communicate our specific
  about inferred evolutionary relationships, and leave
  nomenclature to the function it has very effectively
  fulfilled for many years.  Clearly there is (and
  be!) a very high degree of congruence between the two
  systems of communication.  But attempts to use the
  as a strict communication tool to represent the former
  (usually?) serves neither goal effectively. Birds are a
  great example of this.
  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
  Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences |
  Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety
  Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum,
  1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
  (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
  Taxacom Mailing List
  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
  Injecting Intellectual
  Liquidity for 29 years.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list