[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Philidor: No Class (was RE: Avian stem-group (was: BCF))
Great note to think about! By the way, I'd prefer parried to
defended.
Clearing some underbrush:
<That what is important for one but can be ignored by another,
and that none of us know the true picture, argues that none of
us can see the truth, or know it exists, just argue for perfect
agreement. This is parsimony, and its the #1 best tool
in systematics.>
If I'm reading you correctly, I couldn't make a better argument
against parsimony analysis.
Myself, I'd say: Because evolution is known not to operate always
and inevitably in the most parsimonious manner, any analysis
using parsimony must remain guesswork. Consensus often indicates
consistency of method, and does not by itself support the validity
of the results of the analysis.
A couple of places criticize the beliefs of persons who developed
aspects of the Linnaean system:
<...a vernacular reptile (something scaly, slimy, that crawls
on
its belly or slinks around -- you can thank the 11-15th century
Christians
for this view, in attempts to villianize attributes of disgusting,
lower
creatures from higher purer things, like man).>
and
<That taxonomy should reflect lineage is an old argument, but
is hurt by aethetists who argue that things should be as they
feel they are, and this brings up the entire dirty history of
religious-motivated views on lower versus higher organisms. This
is where he get the quandary of weighting and more "important"
features in the systematic arsenal.>
Whatever prior views were, the Linnaean system is not now hostile
to science, obviously. To my understanding, replacement is not
a priority with many of the workers using the system.
I think the core of your argument is:
<That the majority of systematists view Reptilia as a pure clade
still
does not agree with historical purists who argue that birds and
reptiles
are essentially dichotomous, and this is thanks to Lamarck and
Linn~.
Cuvier worked in the framework, but hardly examined it, which
disfavors my
opinion of the man somewhat, but not his acheivements. No argument
that
birds and reptiles are distinct essentially arrives from a scientific
basis, as they reflect historical or aesthetic reasons for the
existence
of either; the naming of clades, rather than just terms for groups,
utilized these terms in nearly explicit sense, but usually exlusionary
of
taxa _later found to be included_. One then must argue a system
of
effective paraphyly to account for the dichotomy, or accept a
logical
lineage of descent, which must be monophyletic.>
The first comments would be: we can never determine for certain
a single monophyletic lineage, so basing a classification system
on current opinion raises flexibility to the level of the indefinite.
Remember that under this paradigm the ancestor is described
but never named. And, of course, unless you say that you frequently
confuse present-day birds and reptiles, you can see a reason
aside from the historical or the aesthetic for creating these
essential groupings. Strange that you'd consider a system based
on undoubted observations less scientific than one based on malleable
inference, though supported by the insistence of many learned
people.
More interesting, let's take the perfect case: you know the
ancestry and descendants (if any) of every animal (and plant
and whatever) that ever lived. You still don't have a classification
system yet, just an incredibly complex squiggle of lines across
a page.
Classification comes when you decide to carve out a section of
that page and give it a name. Your choice entirely, of course.
You get to say what you include.
When you get through, what have you formulated? A name. What
use is the name? To simplify and speed up communication. Who
are you communicating with? A few people concerned with subtle
distinctions or many people concerned with large, easily grasped
concepts?
Actually, both. You use groupings which will communicate what
you need to say to be understood. For those who don't want to
understand in detail, the large, simply defined groups. For
those who do want the detail, you'd be meticulous and use less
inclusive groups.
You respond to your audience, but remain consistent.
And if the people that you're communicating with want concepts
that center on what they can see, you go along with them. Not
as a sacrifice, but because it meets your purpose. No reason
to aggravate people or change their nature.
Great job!
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.