Re: New alligatoroid paper as example for amateur cladists

[Philidor11@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/6/99 2:40:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:

<< Well, this appears to be an artifact of the transition from Linnean
 to phylogenetic taxonomy. While the author has accepted phylogenetic taxon
 definitions, he is testing the monophyly of the old, non-phylogenetic taxon,
 or more properly they are testing to see if the species included in the old,
 non-phylogenetic taxon form a monophyletic group exclusive of other species
 in the analysis.  >>

Mr. Brochu writes:

<< The name is in the literature, and the analysis supports its monophyly. 
Diplocynodon, Alligator, and Alligatoridae are examples.>>

So, I think I was correct in observing:

<<My best guess at the moment is that you mean different classification 
approaches lead to the same result, but I would like to be sure.>>

There is a problem in what you were saying ,though:

 << In phylogenetic taxonomy, taxa are DEFINED to be monophyletic (e.g.
"the most recent common ancestor of _Ephemerella_ and _Pongo_ and all of its
descendants"), and therefore testing their monophyly is pointless. These
taxa are monophyletic from the get-go, and the range of testable attributes
does not include monophyly...>>

and it appears to be bothering Mr. Brochu as well:

<<Regarding phylogenetic definitions of genera - though I've done it in two 
separate publications, part of me has misgivings.  Clearly, if species can be 
paraphyletic and if all species have a generic name, than generic names can 
also be paraphyletic.>>

If species can be paraphyletic then defining the possibility away by calling 
them monophyletic does not work.  If I've misunderstood Mr. Brochu's 
statement I'm sorry.

Dinogeorge as usual cut quickly to the chase:

<<On the one hand, the author says he has >discovered< that a group is 
monophyletic, whereas on the other hand the author has >defined< that group 
so that it is monophyletic. This is more than mere semantics; it is 
philosophy.>>

Wishing does not make it so.  Aren't taxonomic analyses interpretations?  
Isn't any finding of fact subject to change no matter how well-informed it 
may currently be?  I believe in logic, but not in its ability to find the 
only correct answers with limited data and alternate reasonable possibilities.
Firing away, I guess...