Re: Benton and Kinman (long)

["Demetrios M Vital" <vita0015@umn.edu>]

> anagenesis and diversification which justifies raising it to a higher
rank.

I still can't get over the amount of subjectivity needed to say this.  Who
determines this?  Where is the line drawn?  Where are these mysterious ranks
in nature? (Rhetorical questions; I obviously side with the cladists, to the
limits of my knowledge)  I don't see the purpose of these imaginary ranks as
a tool to classify natural systems, which don't work according to ranks.  In
the end, these ranks require an unattainable knowledge of all the
biodiversity that is, was or ever will be, assuming that even then they'll
work.  When a species gives rise to large groups of species, what determines
if that original group is a Kingdom or Class, or whatever?  It's too
arbitrary and has no basis in nature or the scientific method, far as I can
tell.

If soemone has a way to convince me, that would be great, but until now, I
haven't seen the logic behind non-cladistic taxonomies.  Then again, I'm
somewhat divorced from the cladistic "problems" that I haven't had described
to me yet.

-Demetrios Vital