Encroachment and Prohibition (Science and Evolution )

[Steeman, Fedor]

Thank you, Ken, for taking up this subject. I have in my heart never really
accepted the absolute turn to strict cladism, even though I approve of the
cladistic method to reconstruct phylogeny.

Let's cut to the chase here (in order not to become drowned in discussions
about fighting spouses etc.):

The cladistic method is the best and most objective one (in a matter of
degree) to reconstruct phylogeny with. But once you have reconstructed
phylogeny, does classification necessarily have to reflect phylogeny
exactly? In some cases I (and many others with me) feel that it is better to
retain certain paraphyletic groups in order to maintain surveyability and
stability.

Surveyability: cutting up a classification into thousands of monophyletic
branches clearly does not contribute to accessibility to an already complex
biodiversity, unless we make classificatory chunks that intuitively make
sense.

Stability: new data might turn the phylogeny upside down again and therewith
classification, unless the basic classification agreed upon is not really
affected.

The bottom line: you have established a phylogeny, bravo, but let's include
some extra evolutionary (phenetic) information in the classification. No
need for doing things twice.

Cladists have thrown out the baby with the bath water, when getting rid of
evolutonary systematics. Still, I feel many people out there are
crypto-eclecticists, because strict cladism regularly yields unsurveyable,
unstable, counter-intuitive classifications.

Kind regards,

Fedor Steeman
Data Coordinator Fauna Europaea
Zoological Museum Copenhagen
Tel.: *45 - 353 21074
fsteeman at zmuc.ku.dk



> -----Original Message-----
> From: john grehan [mailto:jgrehan at ADELPHIA.NET]
> Sent: 18. november 2002 14:03
> To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> Subject: [TAXACOM] Encroachment and Prohibition (Science and
> Evolution)
>
>
> Ken wrote:
> >John,
> >     What I see as "germane" is that strict cladists are increasingly
> >encroaching on the freedom of traditional eclecticists to
> pursue science in
> >their own way.
>
> If you are saying that cladists are preventing non-cladistic
> methods from
> publication I would agree that it is a problematic situation.
> I still see a
> lot of phenetic studies being published (including phenetic molecular
> studies dressed up in cladistic terminology) so it would not
> seem that they
> are entirely exclusive. Perhaps you could cite some
> publication examples
> that you have in mind.
>
> >And the most vocal and extreme strict cladists make little
> >effort to hide their contempt for those who disagree with
> them, sometimes
> >commenting that they are just waiting for us "to die off".
>
> This kind of attitude is not confined to whether one is a
> vocal or extreme
> cladist.
>
> >  The insistence of strict cladists that ALL paraphyletic
> >groups must be done away with is unreasonable and one-sided.
>
> My view is that whether it is 'ureasonable' or 'one-sided' is less the
> issue than whether it is a more effective (predictive) approach to the
> structure of biological relationships. Panbiogeography is
> also unreasonable
> and one-sided in not accepting centers of origin and means of
> dispersal as
> an element of biogeographic analysis.
>
> >Arguments that paraphyly is "unnatural" are about as convincing as
> >religious groups arguing
> >that dancing is a sin.
>
> Its convincing to some and not to others.
>
> >     Strict cladism is seen by many as uncompromising,
> single-minded, and
> >sometimes as being like an abusive spouse whose aggression
> just gets worse
> >and worse over time.
>
> Strict cladism may be uncompromising, but that is not necessarily a
> scientific flaw.
>
> >Like abused spouses, we are beginning to realize that
> >we are not alone and increasingly banding together to fight back.
>
> That's the normal practice of scientific discourse - at least
> traditional
> 'male' oriented discourse (lots of 'fighting' - great stuff).
> Perhaps the
> cover page of Hull's book on science as a process is by no
> means coincidental.
>
> >P.S.  While I agree that paraphyly has been overused in the
> past (and worse
> >yet, it was usually inexplicit and often sloppy), that is no
> grounds for
> >prohibiting it.
>
> There are grounds if one takes a purely cladistic view of phylogeny.
>
> >Just as Prohibition (of alcohol) in the U.S. was a bad
> >idea, the attempted Prohibition of Paraphyly in the latter
> quarter of the
> >20th Century will be seen as an extreme measure that ended
> up doing more
> >harm than good.
>
> In which case you will be vindicated.
>
> John Grehan
>