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

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

    A quick clarification and a link to Benton's excellent article.  Beyond 
the main debate over cladistic "classification", there is also a debate over 
the best methods of cladistic "analysis" (i.e. phylogenetic reconstruction). 
 Dodson and others are far more critical of the latter than I am (although 
some of their criticisms of parsimony analysis have some validity).
     However, the wider concerns are clearly over cladistic 
"classification" and the proposed PhyloCode has heightened that debate 
considerably.  Michael Benton's November 2000 paper (which is available on 
the Internet) is an excellent way to get an overview.  The abstract sums it 
all up in a nutshell, and then he delves into the particulars of this 
long-standing debate.
Here's the URL:
     http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp