[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Bats in the Battalion (final recommendation)


I agree with Jaime that many people do not make the distinction between cladistic "classification" (phylogenetic taxonomy) and cladistic "analysis" (in which computer algorithms are a major tool). I am a cladist when it comes to analysis, but very much against strictly cladistic (phylogenetic) classification, in much the same way as Benton and other Ashlockians. See Mayr and Ashlock's 1991 textbook, "Principles of Systematic Zoology" for an excellent (but slightly more conservative) overview.
This schism in biological systematics is several decades old and will not be resolved quickly or easily. It is an unnecessary war in my opinion, but about the best I can do is to try to mitigate the damage by warning the participants (on both sides) of what I think is coming. Both sides correctly believe that the other side has a few "bats in the battalion" (as Jaime so cleverly put it).
My view of human conflict, either generally or in biology in particular, has always been:
"Much of the wealth we seek is lost in war." I strongly recommend that both strict eclecticists and strict cladists acquaint themselves with the centrist views of Peter Ashlock (and Mayr and Ashlock's 1991 book is a great place to start). Maybe we can minimize the casualties as the battles continue, and discussing it from time to time is probably helpful as long as it doesn't get too heated.
---Cheers, Ken Kinman
P.S. However, I agree this thread is going in familiar old circles (round and round), and I'm getting a little dizzy and weary from it. It now seems to be generating more heat than light. Have better things to do too. Happy Halloween!! :-)
******************************************** 
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: qilongia@yahoo.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Bats in the Battalion, Marching to War
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:31:30 -0800 (PST)

In the last 24 hours, I've read now three different posts from three different people referring to the conflict between Linnaean taxonomy and cladistics. Why? Cladistics has nothing to do with taxonomy, it's a compuer algorhithm used to find best-fit matches among input data in a field.
Geneticists use it, etc. There is confusion here, in spite of how many times it is pointed out, and it continues to persist, so I guess it should be re-stated:

  Cladistics is as above, a computer algorhithm, based on input.

Phylogenetic taxonomy (PT for short) is a system by which groups are ordered by relationships and these are phrased by statements to which only an ancestor--descendant relationship is assumed.

As discussed before, Linnaeam systematics is much more different in practice and format, as well as the inclusion of nodes. Cladistics is a practice, and a function only, and has nothing to do with the philosophies of practical science. The argument of ranks is between PT and Linnaean
systematics. 



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