[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladists versus non-cladists
Alas! I also am confused.
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> The more I think about it, the more I realize that general evolutionary
> classifications and cladistic classifications serve *entirely* *different*
> purposes. Much of the "argument" comes from the use of the same
> nomenclature by both types of classification, making them seem to be
> alternative ways of doing the same thing.
Would you (or someone) be kind enough to give just one example of the
ie. word1 doesn't really equal word1
and briefly, cause I know you are busy, explain why it doesn't. Perhaps
an example of two specific animals might help.
In the following which I've quoted so you know I read it, the first
paragraph is quite fine, as is the second, but the second doesn't seem
to follow... and I'll readily admir to being confused.
> This is not, in fact, the case. Phylogenetic classification (that is the
> "cladistic" sort) serves to provide a terminology for discussing
> phylogenies, and also a simple textual way to represent phylogenies. Taxa
> based on cladistic principles proved a way to uniquely and unambiguously
> speak of relationships and lineages.
> Evolutionary taxonomy, on the other hand, provides a way to summarize and
> index general information about organisms. It seeks to optimize both
> overall information content and convenience of access (this last is partly
> accomplished by keeping the number of names and categories to be remembered
When you think of dinosaurs, think of DIG!
The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette - 245 Million Years of News at
Member of The Paleo Ring
Teefr - A new fantasy-adventure story for the whole family by Edward
Book Three of the Teddy Trilogy. Member of The Author Ring.
Laser Publishing Group
Planetarium Station, Box 502-DIG, NY, NY 10024-0502