Thomas R. Holtz,
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of David Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:11 AM
Subject: seeking clarification on the cladism debate (RE: hidden "cladistic" ranks)
Ok, i thought i understood cladistics (i've read faqs-a-plenty, and thought it all made intuitive sense) but i'm pretty sure that i'm missing something because i'm really lost in the argument. I mean, i don't see where the argument is? What makes a strong cladist different from anyone who beleives in naming-based-on-evolutionary-relationships, for example? Ken Kinman referred to researcher's becoming frustrated with Phylocode... frustrated just for the stretching out of the traditional ranks, or is it something else that i missed?
Or am i misunderstanding the argument - is it a debate between those who like the traditional ranks of kingdom-phylum-order etc.. and those who couldn't care less about them? (as opposed to a debate over wether or not cladograms are too angular looking (yes, im sure that one line just made me look like a complete fool, but if so that just illustrates my non-understanding of where the argument is, and hopefully will inspire someone to clear it up for me more vehemently than otherwise). Because i would tentatively venture that calling it a debate over "cladism" in that case might be the wrong word to use, if cladism in principle isn't being disputed?