[Previous by date - Re: RE: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-basedclassification]]
[Next by date - Re: subscribers (& "lophotrochozoans")]
[Previous by subject - RE: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - RE: crown clade convention]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:49:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: kinman@usa.net
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: RE: conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification
Thomas, Mike, Jaime, and Kevin,
I am quite relieved that the "primitive peoples" comment is the main=
focus of your rebuttals. I deplore taxa like Vermes and Pachydermata, an=
d to
suggest that I want to return to traditional eclecticism (much less folk
taxonomy) couldn't be further from the truth, and it just distracts from =
the
more important issues. =
Anyone who takes more than a cursory look at my classifications know=
s
that they are based on cladistic phylogeny, but I choose to add an anagen=
etic
component at carefully chosen spots in the tree of life. Anyone who has
studied Mayr and Ashlock knows the various reasons for this.
I obviously do not incorporate the odd quirks of folk taxonomy,
Aristotle, Linnaeus, or anyone else (including what I believe to be the q=
uirky
aspects of Woese's ideas and classifications that are still popular in ma=
ny
circles). I think cladistics (especially cladistic analysis) is a wonder=
ful
and powerful tool, but I believe that "pure" cladism has swung the pendul=
um
too far and that a cladisto-eclectic synthesis is inevitable. I just hop=
e we
don't have to go through another 35 years of feuding and confusion to get=
there.
------Ken Kinman =
***************************************
"Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." wrote:
Ken Kinman writes:
> From: kinman@usa.net [mailto:kinman@usa.net]
>
> In many cases, the well-defined clade is not only well-defined but=
> distinctive enough that it has often been raised to a higher
> rank. One such
> an embedded clade is Aves which was so distinctive that even
> primitive peoples
> paraphyletically removed it from Reptilia. Not consciously of course, =
but
> this is how the human brain normally classifies, at least when it
> hasn't been
> conditioned to believe that paraphyly is something unnatural.
Not quite an accurate read of folk taxonomy. While it is true that most
cultures recognize a category "bird" (which often includes bats), I can't=
think of a folk taxonomy that recognizes a "Reptilia" sensu Romer and
company (i.e., a group comprising turtles, lepidosaurs, crocs, and nothin=
g
else in the living world). These critters tend to be lumped in the gener=
al
quadruped catagory, and are not brigaded off in a particular section
exclusive of mammals.
Indeed, Linnaeus himself had some rather peculiar combiantions of taxa in=
his Amphibia (Reptilia)...
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1