Re: Philidor: No Class (was RE: Avian stem-group (was: BCF))

[philidor11@snet.net]

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.