Systems of Carpenter, Kinman, and Wiley

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
      The Kinman System is indeed a modified extension (updating) of the
Linnaean System, just as was the system proposed by the cladist Ed Wiley in
1979 ("An Annotated Linnaean Hierarchy, with Comments on Natural Taxa and
Competing Systems"; Syst. Zool., 28:308-337).  I immediately compared
Wiley's proposal with my own (unpublished) system, and although I have
praised the Wiley approach as "well-organized and thought-provoking", I
thought that it had too many fatal flaws, and I was not surprised that it
failed to catch on.  Not only the lack of eclectic conventions for paraphyly
(like my "markers"), but it never made sense to me to use a "negative"
(un-annotated) convention for indicating a "positive" knowledge of
sequencing.
     The Carpenter System (1993; Syst. Biol., 42:142-154) was a definite
improvement on the Wiley System, and my hope is that elements of the
Carpenter System and the Kinman System could be eventually melded together.
Carpenter's optimality criteria (derived from those of Estabrook) certainly
seem to work very well at lower taxonomic levels, and would probably work
well at higher taxonomic levels where appropriate data is available (for
example, angiosperm families and orders).  However, I believe that the
general format of my classifications are less-Wileyian than Carpenter's, and
thus more user-friendly.
      Barry Roth's concern over how much paraphyly to use is an important
one.  In the introduction of my book, I discuss the occasional need for
paraphyletic taxa, and immediately follow up by saying "their overuse is to
be avoided and our greatest challenge is to achieve an optimal mix for each
taxon (purely cladistic for many groups, particularly at lower taxonomic
levels)."  Although I was unaware of Carpenter's 1993 paper when I published
my book in 1994, his optimality criteria are the sort of thing I had in mind
when I used the phrase "optimal mix".
     However, even at any given taxonomic level, optimality depends on the
taxon and the type of data that are available.  With bryophytes (and many
other groups), I  classified the Orders strictly cladistically.  However,
for one group in particular (Class Cephalopodea), the Orders had to be coded
heavily with paraphyly (except for the better known, less fossil-dependent,
coleoid Orders).  I would like to see a somewhat more cladified
classification of Paleozoic cephalopods, but I doubt that it will ever be
wise to completely cladify it (at least not in our lifetimes).  Each taxon
is different in our ability to usefully cladify it, and although I tend to
prefer more cladified versions, that doesn't mean the MOST cladified version
is always the best.  I have seen too many cases of premature cladification
based on homoplastic characters (like the recent Arctometatarsalia fiasco,
although that zoologist was courageous enough to admit his error in a timely
manner).
     Anyway, whether Carpenter's optimality criteria could be applied to
Paleozoic cephalopods (at this point in time) is very difficult to say.
Missing data has always been a terrible problem in classifying fossil taxa,
and it always will be (barring the development of very advanced "Jurassic
Park"-type technologies far in the future).  In any case, I predict that
decades from now (with massive amounts of molecular data available) mixed
cladisto-eclectic classifications will still be used, and that the notion of
totally eliminating paraphyly from formal classifcations will no longer be
seriously considered.
      Strict cladism is trying to burn bridges that others find valuable,
and the work of people like Kent Carpenter are beginning to show how
increasing short-sighted strict cladism is becoming.  Punishing eclecticists
for resisting the burning of such useful "bridges" is a bit like blaming the
victims, and the older I get, the more strongly I have ranted against this
kind of thing.  PhyloCode (at least in its present form) would be somewhat
like the South's secession from the Union in 1861.  Systematics would
eventually become reunified, but at a terrible price that I would hope we
could avoid.  I am less concerned about being vindicated than I am the
damage I believe systematics is increasingly inflicting on it prospects in
the immediate future.  The sad fact is that alpha taxonomy (which is much
needed in the face of increasing extinction) will probably unfairly bear the
brunt of that damage, as has been pointed in various exchanges here and
elsewhere.
            ------- Ken Kinman
P.S.  On a lighter note, a funny comment in a post on the DML (Dinosaur
Mailing List) yesterday by an eclecticist.  He used the term "birds", and he
then parenthetically added: (at least that is what this "hominid
sarcopterygian" prefers to call "avian theropods").  I'm sure that Peter
Dodson would get a kick out of that one.  :-)   What Dodson calls "tortured
English" would only get worse and more obfuscationally legalistic under
PhyloCode (and thus one of many reasons I now oppose it, rather than vainly
try to marginally improve it).

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail