[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Taxonomic philosophy (was Re: WHAT'S GOING ON?)

But the Hennigian convention of cladogenesis is still a very useful and powerful way of analyzing evolutionary history.
Unfortunately strict cladists make pests of themselves by banging us over the head with cladogenesis, and I suspect that many of them believe sister groups actually exist in nature (see my post "Sister Groups do not Exist" from last week).
In the process, they are going to detract from what is really important, cladistic ANALYSIS (and devising ways to make it better). And if they are not careful, the strict cladists may end up with a hybrid system that is not nearly as cladisto-friendly as the Kinman System is. They seem to be willing to bet the whole farm on strict cladism, and this "all or nothing" attitude is going to get them in a lot of trouble sooner or later. And the rest of us will be caught up in the backlash.
It really irritates me that cladists and eclecticists won't even try to mend their differences. And it obviously isn't just the strict cladists----the Feduccaries look just as silly in my eyes, both sides yelling at each other like spoiled brats. What a big fat, inefficient, mess. It's embarrassing.
------Ken Kinman
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Taxonomic philosophy (was Re: WHAT'S GOING ON?)
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:38:21 EDT

In a message dated 7/3/00 1:14:45 PM EST, kinman@hotmail.com writes:

<< As Dr. Ashlock would have said, cladistic classification ignores half of
 evolution, anagenesis, in its focus on cladogenesis. >>

Actually, anagenesis is >all< there is; there is no cladogenesis. What we
perceive or observe as cladogenesis is simply anagenesis operating differentially on reproductively separated populations and gene pools.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com