RE: hidden "cladistic" ranks

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of Ken
Kinman
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:00 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: hidden "cladistic" ranks


     Unfortunately, cladistic (phylogenetic) taxonomy has so many ranks (now
undesignated, but still there) that they finally had to give up trying to
name them all.   I think it is just semantic "smoke and mirrors" (or more
likely, not really examining what they have been taught) to claim they have
abandoned ranks.<<

This is a major problem with cladistics (for me that is). In the Linnaean
system there was a higherarchy (simple, easy to use, Superorder, Order,
Suborder, Infraorder). Then cladistics came into play and started to make
more splits in the Linnaean system between what was already established
(Megaorder, Microrder, etc). Each time they use a cladigram they kept
changing and redefining animals and placing them in between what was
established until now they've stretched out the old Linnaean system so much
that it is useless. I know this because of my taxa lists and trying to place
all the lists into one. Now, they don't even name things just place genera
names, IMHO losing any systematic order at all. Every cladigram is different
from the other, places different genera in different places (sure some are
placed in the same place) but when known well established animals are
bounced around from spot to spot on different cladigrams just makes me roll
my eyes and say, yea yea, just another cladigram, big deal.



     In essence, cladistic taxonomy has one large taxon (Biota, or as I call
it "Geobiota"), plus many millions of species----and **everything** in
between is an intermediate taxon.  Instead of eliminating formal
intermediate taxa (as I have done), they are encouraging huge increases in
the number of such formal taxa.
      Clearly strict cladism is going in the wrong direction, encouraging a
wholesale increase in names, and at the same time eliminating the
hierarchical signposts that have been long used in written and verbal
communication between biologists.  It's a darn good way to get lost, and
more and more people are finally recognizing this.<<

Well, I agree. There needs to be a coherent system that everyone uses. What
to use as a character, what to use as a node, etc.

      Thank goodness for centrists like Peter Dodson, Michael Benton, and
some people on this list as well.  One can enjoy the benefits of cladistic
analysis without being a strict cladist when it comes to classification.
             ------Ken Kinman

My articles will lack any cladigram at all and they better not ever be
turned down because of it. I should not have to use a system I don't believe
it. You others, it works fine for, great, use it, but I won't.

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074
PS; its funny, my spell check keeps saying I need to change Cladistic to
sadistic...