[Taxacom] Wikispecies as an open alternative to Catalogue ofLife

[John Grehan]

Ken,

I don't see how a paraphyletic Pongidae solves anything since I think
the human-orang clade is real so there is no necessity for a
paraphyletic Pongidae. The latter would not be consistent with the
human-orang clade unless the sequence ended with humans and orangutans,
and then in which case there would be no need for a Pongidae for great
apes to exist. Pongidae as proposed by Schwartz would be restricted to
orangutans and their nearest fossil relatives.

The difference between myself and the chimp-hominid folks is that I am
willing to acknowledge that there are two incompatible phylogenetic
reconstructions and I am happy to see both side by side in
representations of primate phylogeny. According to the chimp-hominid
folk, at least those who have made public declarations, this can never
be allowed. The orangutan must stay in the closet.

I am interested in the reality of phylogeny. Perhaps the ultimate
reality for some taxa is instability. Perhaps 'ture' phylogeny of life
is inherently ambiguous. Morphologically, however, the human-orangutan
clade seems very stable indeed.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:00 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies as an open alternative to Catalogue
ofLife

Gee John,
       If you are so upset about minority reconstructions being
excluded, I would think you would actually embrace a traditional,
paraphyletic Family Pongidae (for orangutans, chimps and gorillas).  A
Global Hierarchy using such a taxon is thus consistent with either
chimps or orangutans being sister to Family Hominidae, or even my
minority inclination that it could be a chimp-gorilla clade that is
sister group to Family Hominidae.         

      But instead of embracing such a traditional taxon for the "Global
Hierarchy", you are just as guilty as the chimp-hominid folks in
insisting that "we know best" and want a strict cladification (even
though the strict cladifications are incompatible with one another).  It
seems to me that it is just such cases where paraphyletic taxa are the
most useful and stable, and I am willing to admit that any of the above
groupings could be sister group to Family Hominidae.  Strict cladists
apparently just don't care about stablility in such cases.  They would
rather just continue to fight each other over their incompatible strict
phylogenies.           
               ---------Ken 
  
---------------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote:
       Another problem with 'global hierarchies' is that they can end up
being exclusive of minority reconstructions and treat the accepted
phylogeny as somehow having the true reality. This occurs in the Tree of
Life project which is based only on a molecular reconstruction for
humans and the great apes (I tried proposing the representation of both
trees but that was dismissed). People may have the power of being
selective about phylogeny, but it can misrepresent the reality of
phylogenetic research in at least some cases. 
John Grehan 



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here