[Previous by date - current usage (blunt talk)]
[Next by date - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]
[Previous by subject - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:20:06 +0200
From: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: current usage (blunt talk)
Hi Ken, I think that you don't get my main point, although I may not have expressed= it verly clearly. Cladists have redefined many taxa to make them= monophyletic back in the 1970. The point that I was trying to make is that= many of these usages are now accepted by a very large number of scientists,= and in some cases, even by laymen (although most laymen are familiar only= with a small number of taxa, of course). Making taxa monophyletic is not= the pupose of Phylocode because the Phylocode takes for granted that taxa= are monophyletic. I have not seen a backlash against cladistics because of= the new meanings that we give to many names, although I admit that a few= people don't like this. But these are mostly people who don't like= cladistics anyway (and they are systematists), so I don't expect them to= like the Phylocode, no matter how accommodating we try to be. Also, no= matter what we do, we have to accept that we will not please everybody. I= think that we have to try to get the best, workable code we can get, and I= think that (with time, I grant you), it will get increasingly accepted. Michel >Michel, > Excuse me for being blunt, but I think your casual dismissal (of Mike >Keesey's concerns) is short-sighted. This kind of attitude (keep shoving = it >down their ignorant throats and they will eventually have to swallow it) >smacks of Ivory Tower elitism. > If PhyloCode is to have any chance at all of catching on, the >hard-liners had better start listening to more moderate cladists like Canti= no >and Keesey. Otherwise you not only risk the failure of PhyloCode, but a mu= ch >more widespread reactionary backlash against cladistics in general. =20 > As one who believes cladistic analysis is a valuable tool (as did my >teacher Peter Ashlock), I fear such a backlash will be directed not only at >cladistic classification, but at cladistic analysis as well, and that would= be >a tragic swing of the pendulum away from the useful aspects of cladistics. > Therefore, if you continue to equate "current usage" only with "cladis= tic >current usage" (as your comments below would indicate), you are doing your >more moderate colleagues a disservice, and PhyloCode won't stand a snowball= 's >chance in hell. Again pardon my bluntness, but I see storm clouds fast >approaching, and your approach strikes me as similar to a certain lady whos= e >opinion was "Let them eat cake". > If you don't face these issues now (and Cantino and Keesey seem to be >making a sincere effort to do so), the consequences will be just that much >worse when they finally catch up with you. An ounce of prevention can go a >long way. > -----Ken Kinman >**************************************** >Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr> wrote: >>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Michel Laurin wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >Personally, I don't mind using _Synapsida_ (and _Therapsida_) as clades >-- >>> >I've done so for years. I'm just thinking of "selling" the system to a >>> >wider audience, some of whom may find these conversions (and those of >>> >_Reptilia_, _Osteichthyes_, etc.) hard to swallow, especially when othe= r >>> >names for the clades are already in existence (however obscure). >>> >>> Actually, I don't think that this will be a problem. Many >>> vertebrate paleontologists (including myself) have been using >>> Synapsida in this monophyletic sense for so long, that I think this is >>> already considered the normal meaning of that name. >> >>Good point. Fine for those taxa, then, but what about groups still used >>quite commonly (probably mroe commonly) in their traditional senses, like >>_Osteichthyes_ and _Reptilia_? >> >>(_Amphibia_ is not quite so bad, IMHO, since it still refers to the same >>group in terms of extant taxa, and most biologists work with extant taxa.) > > Actually, I know many paleontologists (again, including myself) tha= t >have used Osteichthyes, Reptilia, and Amphibia as clades for many years. I >think that this is a general issue (I suspect that most taxa have been used= as >clades by now), and that people will just have to get used to the idea that >the only taxa that are valid are clades (this has been a major tenet of >cladistics for fourty years, so this should not be controversial), so there >should be no special problems with Osteichthyes, Reptilia or Amphibia. I >think that most people understand that sometimes, progress requires a chang= e >of habits. Anyway, that's my opinion. > > Sincerely, > > Michel ********************************** Michel Laurin Equipe 'Formations squelettiques' CNRS - UMR 8570 Case 7077 Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot 2, place Jussieu 75251 Paris cedex 05 France Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92 Fax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53 http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html **********************************