[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Defending grades (Was: Re: Archaeopteryx (rant))
Torfinn Ørmen <email@example.com> wrote:
IMHO statements like "one class (Reptilia) can give rise to another (Aves)"
can in fact be helpful in communicating ideas about evolution, because it
is about how new traits come to be.
My objection is to the use of the word "class". It's typological baggage.
Linnaean hierarchy (Kingdom, Phylum Class, Order) is not an evolutionary
concept, but (as pointed out) a human construct, and entirely arbitrary.
Linnaean taxonomy may have a use in simple bookkeeping - Linnaean
stamp-collecting, as I said in a previous post - but not in evolutionary
For a nice take on this topic, check out
A purely phylogenetic classification system tells us basically nothing
about the physical evolution of the critters in question. On the other
hand, a system based on a combination og phylogeny and morphological
evolution will tell us a lot.
Uh-huh. Cladograms are based on anatomical characters (and sometimes
molecular data too, for extant groups). You can have your cake and eat it
That a certain "class" should not be included in the parent "class" is not
necessarily saying that the level of organization is superior in any way to
the ancestral group. Think about parasites with redused body plans. -It
only means that it is so different that it would require a serious
redefinition of the ancestral "class" to include them. Or am I missing the
No serious redefinition is required. Clades are typically not defined on
the basis of anatomical characters of behaviors. For good reason...
Anatomical and/or behavioral traits are used to *diagnose * clades. But
even here, not every member must exhibit this trait. The bird clade
(Avialae) is diagnosed by the acquisition of powered flight, which is
evident in the first members of the clade. But loss of the ability does not
result in a species' expulsion from Aves. Kiwis, dodos, penguins and
flightless rails are still members of Aves.
Your example of the "parasites with reduced body plans" conforms to the same
theme. Thus, highly morphologically divergent taxa are still included in
their "parent" clade.
For a nice analogy, read http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2000Aug/msg00156.html
(scroll to the bottom.)
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*