RE: seeking clarification on the cladism debate (RE: hidden "cladistic" ranks)

["Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>]

Very observant!!  Yes, the main objections on the part of Dodson, Benton, etc. has to do with matters of taxonomy (the assigning of names) rather than phylogenetic reconstruction (the way we uncover the geometry of the tree of life).

 

The Benton-crowd objects to certain practices with regards to the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy, but do not object at all to (and in fact are generators of) cladistic reconstructions of evolutionary relationships.

 

Ken Kinman can speak for himself as to what his particular objections are.

 

                Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
                College Park, MD  20742      
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of David Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:11 AM
To: DINOSAUR@listproc.usc.edu
Subject: seeking clarification on the cladism debate (RE: hidden "cladistic" ranks)

Ok, i thought i understood cladistics (i've read faqs-a-plenty, and thought it all made intuitive sense) but i'm pretty sure that i'm missing something because i'm really lost in the argument. I mean, i don't see where the argument is? What makes a strong cladist different from anyone who beleives in naming-based-on-evolutionary-relationships, for example? Ken Kinman referred to researcher's becoming frustrated with Phylocode... frustrated just for the stretching out of the traditional ranks, or is it something else that i missed?

Or am i misunderstanding the argument - is it a debate between those who like the traditional ranks of kingdom-phylum-order etc.. and those who couldn't care less about them? (as opposed to a debate over wether or not cladograms are too angular looking (yes, im sure that one line just made me look like a complete fool, but if so that just illustrates my non-understanding of where the argument is, and hopefully will inspire someone to clear it up for me more vehemently than otherwise). Because i would tentatively venture that calling it a debate over "cladism" in that case might be the wrong word to use, if cladism in principle isn't being disputed?