Re: nomenclature vs. identification key (last one)

["Steve Salisbury" <steve_salisbury@bigpond.com>]

Don't worry, this is the last one.

----------
>From: chris brochu <cbrochu@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: nomenclature vs. identification key
>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 7:54 AM

>> Why should you assume that everyone is working in
>>your evolutionary framework?
>
> It's not MY evolutionary framework.  Evolution  provides a hierarchy
> that we discover.

And the search for the Holy Grail continues . . . sigh.

> What's the point of using taxon names if there are as
> many meanings floating about as there are systematists?

Well before any dual just state what kind of gun you're going to use.  As
long as things are internally logically, I don't think there's a problem.

>>>  it all depends on whether
>>>you believe taxonomies should reflect phylogenies.  I don't think taxonomic
>>>categorisations have anything to do with phylogeny or, for that matter,
>>>evolutionary transformations.  To my mind, taxonomic definitions that rely
>>>on assumptions of relationship are therefore meaningless (sorry Chris).
>
> They're  conclusions (or hypotheses) - patterns derived from an
> analysis are post hoc and are hence not assumptions.

Identifying a pattern involves using assumptions.  Objectivity is just
another Holy Grail.  As individuals we can't help but be subjective.
Enbrace subjectivity and Science is much less of a hassle.

>>>Taxonomies are much easier to defend when they don't involve phylogenetic
>>>presuppositions.
>
> But without phylogeny, there is precious little TO defend.  So I
> guess you're right - if there's nothing left to defend, one's job
> suddenly becomes very easy.

And the Crusades are over.  What will the Church spend all its money on
then?

> I think, ultimately, part of the difference between Steve's approach
> and mine is that for some people, a taxonomic system should serve a
> direct utilitarian function as an identification key.  ID keys are
> certainly useful things (and are true classifications in the
> strictest sense of the word), but they are not (and cannot be)
> taxonomies, because they are operating from the standpoint that
> groups of organisms are classes with static defining properties and
> not the historical products of ancestry and descent - which is
> precisely what taxonomies are.

All taxonomies rely on the recognition of static defining properties.

Anyway Chris, as always it's been very enjoyable.  But I'm going to have to
leave it there ? I think there's a couple of creationists at the door.

Cheers,

Steve



---------------------------
Steve Salisbury

Palaeontology and Geology, Queensland Museum
PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Q 4101, Australia

www.Qmuseum.qld.gov.au