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

Re: ADV: Re: ADV: Re: Classification: A Definition



gerarus@westnet.com.au wrote:

And in reply to Mike Taylor and Mike Keesey - you're right, I wasn't
disagreeing with phylogeny as an ideal in classification. My idea was
that in cases where the ideal could not be met, that should not
prevent all development.

I think when you say "phylogeny" here, you mean "the actual, real phylogeny". But we're never going to know everything about the phylogeny of all organisms. Ideally we would be handed from on high a directional acyclic graph with all organisms as vertices and all parent-child relationships as arcs, but in reality our knowledge is much fuzzier. Even a well-supported hypothesis achieved by cladistic analysis is not necessarily the last say on the matter, and even if it is right it ignores things like potential ancestry and resolution to the level of individual organisms. Our understanding is always going to be an approximation.

When we talk about using phylogeny as the basis for nomenclature, of
course we mean (in practical terms at least) "our understanding of
phylogeny".

And I still submit that your example does just use (our understanding
of) phylogeny. You wouldn't find it acceptable to group based on,
e.g., phenetic similarity where it disagrees with phylogeny (for
example, a taxon including the males but not the females of a
dimorphic species).
--
Mike Keesey