[Previous by date - Re: Subscribers]
[Next by date - Re: Subscribers]
[Previous by subject - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]
[Next by subject - Re: defining clades/ancestors]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:41:30 -0700
From: chris brochu <cbrochu@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: current usage (blunt talk)
>Michel Laurin wrote: > >......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... > > >I am a (eukaryotic) microbiologist, and inhabit a world where >"cladist" is generally used as an insult. As I read the phylocode, it >should be acceptable to people who think parsimony analyses of anything >are a waste of time, but who nonetheless want an efficient code for >classification. I wouldn't give up on converting 'cladistics-haters' to >Phylocode. > There are different meanings of the word "cladist" afoot. It can mean an advocate of phylogenetic taxonomy (restricting taxon names to clades, at least above the species level), an advocate of parsimony analysis, or some combination of the two. I see the two approaches confused in the literature, especially among invertebrate paleontologists. chris ------------------------ Christopher A. Brochu Assistant Professor Department of Geoscience University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 christopher-brochu@uiowa.edu 319-353-1808 phone 319-335-1821 fax