[Taxacom] Save Order Bromeliales!!! (was: International Commission....)

[Don.Colless at csiro.au]

Readers with access to ancient journals might care to consult my article "A Cornucopia of Categories", Syst. Zool. 1977, 26:349. It is still relevant, although the journal was then tainted with phenetics!

Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman [kennethkinman at webtv.net]
Sent: 03 October 2011 14:13
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Save Order Bromeliales!!! (was: International        Commission....)

Hi Richard,
      While I realize that your observation (that such elimination of
paraphyletic taxa could be a boon to "elderly taxonomists") was offered
with a bit of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, it is certainly no laughing
matter.  And actually, phylogeneticists are not only eliminating
paraphyletic taxa, but creating even larger numbers of new clade names
at a rate that even I find alarming (I love clades, but formally naming
them with the slightest bit of new data can be terribly premature and
destabilizing).  Therefore we have large numbers of new names to digest,
many which will not stand the test of time, at the same time that
perfectly good paraphyletic taxa are being thrown on the garbage heap
(which we agree is not helpful).
      Anyway, I can't help but wonder if the abandonment of the
perfectly good Order Bromeliales (among others) into APG's bloated Order
Poales was an attempt to avoid potential paraphyly (perhaps the same for
their bloated Order Malpighiales).  The Order Bromeliales continues to
be recognized by large numbers of people (biologists and gardeners
alike), and yet the APG seems unwillingly to reverse any of their
extreme lumping (even that one).  Are they afraid of paraphyly jumping
up and biting them in the behind, or are they just intransigent
(unwilling to admit they made a mistake)?  Once it was shown that Order
Hydatellales (which they also sunk into Poales) was not even a monocot),
it was a perfect opportunity to reassess the wisdom of their
overlumping, but instead they just ejected it apparently without
reevaluating the wisdom of a bloated Order Poales (even without it).
      Anyway, I see no good reason to continue lumping either Order
Bromeliales or Order Typhales within such a heterogenous and monstrous
Order Poales.  They are distinct not only in morphology, but molecularly
as well, so there is no excuse for it.  It is time for APG to reverse at
least one of their excessive overlumpings, and this one is at the top of
my list for such a reversal.
      -----------Ken Kinman
---------------------------------------------------------

Richard Zander wrote:
     Perhaps we will not have to remember so many names as
phylogeneticists eliminate any name that has macroevolutionary
connotations, i.e. those that create paraphyly in classification. Given
that estimates and simulations in the literature indicate that more than
50% of present-day taxa have extant ancestors, we can expect these to be
soon nameless, a boon to us elderly taxonomists.
This may get in the way of understanding macroevolutionary
relationships, but does not halt microevolutionary studies.




_______________________________________________

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