[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: future "taxonomy generally"
Ken Kinman wrote:
<The mutability of genes, bacteria, primitive
eukaryotes, and "higher organisms" is just one of the
virtually continuous facets of the complex
evolutionary continuity of life overall.>
Let me put it this way ... if eukaryotes are basally
so mutable, the classificatory scheme as currently
used by cladistics, or by you, or other "eclectists"
(this is too _ad hominem_ for me) to described them
must be erroneously applied. A new scheme for them has
to be derived. Taking a group of elephants and
applying molecular or morphologic or purely intuitive
reasoning to their relationships to provide a
higher-order reasoning to the population (both living
and fossil), will produce a scheme of reasoning
generally represented as a tree. This can be visually
interpreted into a tree (most common) or as boxes
(historic) or as a list (faunal diversity). Depending
on whether the student (i.e., person who studies) is
deriving a descent, ancestry, in-group, or what-not
system from the group studied, different techniques
will be applied. This will in any case differ
substantially from the organization and descent and
mutation factors in bacteria.
The two schemes will not be compatible. There must
be more than one scheme, else shoe-horning will derive
intrinsically erroneous conclusions. So trying to
apply a group of basal eukaryotes or more basal
organisms (as you have on the list before) to a
cladistic scheme will of course produce results that
will be, to say the least, screwy. Leaving the
higher-order organisms which do not present lateral
gene transfer, even mutation in a controlled, stable
ecosystem to a system that derives descent/ancestor
models will produce a more tree-based phylogeny.
Organisms, by observation, will have more common
ancestry will some than with others of similar mein.
This produces a tree, not a list. "Markers" argue for
an ambiguity, and I would like to hear your comments
Of course, keeping in mind that _all_ taxonomies are
only hypotheses... :)
Jaime "James" A. Headden
Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!