[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
identical nomenclature?

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
> limited).

Many thanks.
E. Summer

When you think of dinosaurs, think of DIG!
The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette - 245 Million Years of News at
Dinosaur Central
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