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

Re: More on the genus problem

 This is just another problem with the belief that all around can fit
 into species according to the biological species concepts, which is
 based on sex and gene pools.

To be fair, Ernst Mayr said out loud that asexual organisms "do not form species".

That's right: he told the ICZN, the ICBN, and the ICNB* to go cheney themselves. They did, however, not listen...

* ...which may not even have existed yet... it only dates to 1980...

 Who can ascertain two duckbilled dinosaurs with strikingly different
 head ornament cannot bring fertile offspring? Will expose myself to
 ridicule with a further exaggeration, but the same applies with a
 ceratopsian and a duckbill.

The "Biological Species Concept"s cannot be applied to the dead. End of discussion. :-|

 The principal reason for the use of cladistic classification

I wouldn't call cladistics "classification". It's just the method of the science of phylogenetics, the way to reconstruct phylogenetic trees. It's not concerned with the pseudoproblem of "translating the tree into a classification" (...even though Hennig, for no good reason, considered that the goal of phylogenetics).

 As Gould said, if something ends up being a mess, it is possible that
 we are asking wrong questions and so we may better leave the matter
 and think on it other way.

Yupyup <vehement nodding>.