[Previous by date - Cover illustration]
[Next by date - Re: another tiresome (and predictable) attack against phylogenetic systematics]
[Previous by subject - a comment on ancestor]
[Next by subject - apomorphy-based names]
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:10:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: StephanPickering@cs.com
To: paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology@yahoogroups.com
Cc: birds-and-landscapes@yahoogroups.com, darkraptorsdinosaurclub@yahoogroups.com, DinosaurEvolution@yahoogroups.com, jurassicdavesdinoclub@yahoogroups.com, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, thedinosaurabyss@yahoogroups.com, theraptorsrealm@yahoogroups.com, theropod_dinosaurs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: another tiresome (and predictable) attack against phylogenetic systematics
--Boundary_(ID_cgGti8cGMFVUoaRGYH1Dsg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Otto Kraus, 2004. Phylogeny, classification, and nomenclature: a reply to F.
Pleijel and G.W. Rouse. Jour. Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research
42(2):159-161. ABSTRACT. In systematics, the uncovering of monophyletic units,
of sister group relationships and also of paraphyla is an important part of
primary research. The hypotheses derived are thus subject to falsification and
are subject to change. In contrast, classifications are a secondary step, as
they are derived from such hypotheses. Classifications are based on different
philosophies, which permit different solutions as to how results in the fields
of taxonomy and phylogenetics can be transposed into a 'system'. The function
of classifications is at least partly utilitarian, and this is even more true
for the names and principles of nomenclature. Nomenclature is simply a tool for
information retrieval and for safeguarding understanding. Directly linking
names and cladograms or nodes, respectively - making them subject to changes by
falsification - would deliberately ignore the primary, strictly utilitarian
function of long-established principles of nomenclature and would endanger an
instrument that functions almost perfectly. Approaches to introduce a so-called
PhyloCode should therefore not be pursued, as there is no chance at all that
this kind of code could be generally accepted.
***************************************
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
The Dinosaur Fractals Project
2333 Portola Drive # 4
Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
stephanpickering@cs.com
website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERING at their
Reference Base
--Boundary_(ID_cgGti8cGMFVUoaRGYH1Dsg)
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SAN=
SSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Otto Kraus, 2004. Phylogeny, classificatio=
n, and nomenclature: a reply to F. Pleijel and G.W. Rouse. <I>Jour. Zoologic=
al Systematics & Evolutionary Research </I>42(2):159-161. ABSTRACT. In s=
ystematics, the uncovering of monophyletic units, of sister group relationsh=
ips and also of paraphyla is an important part of primary research. The hypo=
theses derived are thus subject to falsification and are subject to change.=20=
In contrast, classifications are a secondary step, as they are derived from=20=
such hypotheses. Classifications are based on different philosophies, which=20=
permit different solutions as to how results in the fields of taxonomy and p=
hylogenetics can be transposed into a 'system'. The function of classificati=
ons is at least partly utilitarian, and this is even more true for the names=
and principles of nomenclature. Nomenclature is simply a tool for informati=
on retrieval and for safeguarding understanding. Directly linking names and=20=
cladograms or nodes, respectively - making them subject to changes by falsif=
ication - would deliberately ignore the primary, strictly utilitarian functi=
on of long-established principles of nomenclature and would endanger an inst=
rument that functions almost perfectly. Approaches to introduce a so-called=20=
PhyloCode should therefore not be pursued, as there is no chance at all that=
this kind of code could be generally accepted. =20
<BR> =20
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D6 PTSIZE=3D24 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=
=3D"0">***************************************</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000=
" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10=20=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">=20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D1 PTSIZE=3D8 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Georgia" LANG=3D"0=
"><B>STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
<BR>The Dinosaur Fractals Project
<BR>2333 Portola Drive # 4
<BR>Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
<BR>stephanpickering@cs.com
<BR>website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
<BR>theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERI=
NG at their Reference Base
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_cgGti8cGMFVUoaRGYH1Dsg)--