holophyletic groups only & the future

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Chris,
    That is the problem with strictly cladistic classifications, they ARE 
restricted to monophyletic (holophyletic) groups.  But you are failing to 
recognize that paraphyletic groups can be natural too  (especially if 
semi-paraphyletic), and are only considered unnatural by strict cladists.
    And you ignore a very important component in your classifications, 
namely anagenesis (divergence), so in a sense your classifications are less 
natural than eclectic ones.  Before Hennig came along the term monophyletic 
included both paraphyly and strict holophyly.  It was Hennig's restriction 
of the term monophyly that prompted Ashlock to coin the term holophyly.
    However it became abundantly clear to me that the fundamental 
philosophical differences between cladism and eclecticism were so powerful 
that they had to be merged in some way, or the war between them would just 
get worse.
     That is when I hit upon the idea of semi-paraphyletic groups, where 
you removed a group (like birds from reptiles), but you had to leave a 
marker behind to explicitly show this.  It's like removing it formally, but 
not removing it in an informational sense.  Birds (Aves) are still shown to 
be dinosaur descendants, but without all this silliness about non-avian 
dinosaurs, etc.
     It is the strict cladists who are causing a lot of confusion, by 
failing to recognize "divergence" as a part of human cognitive 
classification----that's how humans have always thought.  You are going 
against the grain, and you are imposing unnatural and paraphylophobic 
restrictions that the world is simply never going to accept.  Cladistic 
arbitrariness and authoritarianism is just as bad, if not worse, than 
eclectic arbitrariness and authoritarianism.
     The study of dinosaurs is perhaps the pinnacle of strictly cladistic 
classification, and the problems that are now cropping up here are just a 
drop in the bucket compared to trying to apply strictly cladistic 
classifications to many other groups of organisms.  I think you would be 
shocked how unpopular such classifications are in other disciplines 
(especially in botany).  Some even criticize the Kinman System as being too 
cladistic.
     In the end I think a hybrid system will emerge, and if the cladistic 
backlash is strong enough, such a system might not be as accomodating to 
cladists as I have tried to be.  The Kinman System was designed to make the 
transition as smooth as possible and to minimize confusion.  Unfortunately, 
the failure of both sides to attempt any reconciliation is going to lead to 
a real mess in the future.
     And I predict both sides in the cladisto-eclectic war will suffer an 
erosion of public confidence, and perhaps even attempted micromanagement of 
governmental research funds that will make science a whole lot less 
productive (not to mention less pleasant).  Time will tell.  It just all 
seems so unnecessary.
                  ------Ken Kinman

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com