[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters
-- UPGMA is not cladistics
Richard Jensen
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Wed Nov 14 11:54:32 CST 2012
2012
If you define an explanation, based on careful observation and current
understanding of evolutionary theory, a story, then there must be no
causal explanation that you will accept, right? Thus, your suggestion
that the orang is our closest primate relative is just a story - no
causality implied.
I don't choose to define causal that way and I believe we can provide
causal explanations that are solidly grounded on scientific knowledge
and theories.
Dick J
On 11/14/2012 12:21 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> 'causal' being another word for a story.
> John Grehan
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Richard Jensen
> <rjensen at saintmarys.edu <mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu>> wrote:
>
> Kirk,
>
> Don't the branching patterns we see in cladograms (or the nested
> sets we
> see in phenograms) imply a cause? These groups exist for a reason
> - we
> have identified characters and examined the distributions of
> characters
> to determine if there are patterns. We could argue that these
> patterns
> are just chance consequences of developmental processes, but I would
> like to believe that these patterns have a causal basis. Our
> recognition of, say, Spermatophyta (the seed plants) is based on our
> understanding that these plants share an evolutionary history
> reflected
> in their reproductive (and other) structures. By examining the fossil
> record and using the tools of evo-devo, botanists are constructing
> causal explanations for the patterns we see.
>
> Dick J
>
>
> On 11/13/2012 5:30 PM, Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > I do hope you're referring to my view that a 'tree' sensu a
> cladogram, not any phenetic contraption, implies a specifiable set
> of explanatory hypotheses. For that reason, too much emphasis is
> placed on branching diagrams, when our real interest as scientists
> is causal understanding. A cladogram is merely a profoundly vague
> representation of equally vague causal accountings (assuming the
> name of the game in science is causal understanding).
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> > Curator of Polychaetes
> > Invertebrate Zoology Section
> > Research & Collections Branch
> > Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> > 900 Exposition Blvd
> > Los Angeles CA 90007
> > Phone: 213-763-3233 <tel:213-763-3233>
> > FAX: 213-746-2999 <tel:213-746-2999>
> > e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org <mailto:kfitzhug at nhm.org>
> > http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] on behalf of Richard
> Zander [Richard.Zander at mobot.org <mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org>]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:38 AM
> > To: Ashley Nicholas; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
> characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics
> >
> > Ah, yes, youth should question the decisions of their elders.
> >
> >
> >
> > Re phenograms and hypotheses, I agree with Fitzhugh, who, on
> Taxacom,
> > has doggedly pointed out that a tree is not a causal
> explanation. The
> > neat and well supported cladograms show nesting, which is not a
> process
> > in nature (pace birds). The phenograms/cladograms/phylograms need a
> > process-based explanation. A phenogram is the truth only in that
> it is a
> > nested set generated by data selected to generate a nested set. A
> > phenogram is a phenogram, that's the truth. Basing a
> classification on a
> > dendrogram that truly represents the nesting information in the data
> > means a classification based on truth, but only on a methodological
> > basis. The causal origin of the nesting shown by the dendrogram
> may be
> > serial macroevolutionary transformation at the taxon level, we hope.
> > Figuring out the latter is difficult. Process-based truth is a
> rarely
> > obtained commodity in science.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nesting does not happen in nature (there's a scowling sparrow
> pecking at
> > my window). Serial transformations do, according to theory. I
> don't see
> > much in the literature about serial macroevolution of taxa, but
> I do see
> > lots of "answers" about nesting. The question seems to be
> missing for
> > those answers. I suggest it is "What are the serial
> macroevolutionary
> > transformations that involve these taxa, and how might such help
> > classification?"
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably not affect classical classifications much, since Linnaean
> > classification uses names to distinguish and to group, but not to
> > reflect wildly varying theories of evolution, which should be
> discussed,
> > not cast in nomenclatural stone.
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________
> > Richard H. Zander
> > Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> > Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> > <http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/> and
> > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> > <http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm>
> > Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> > <http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm>
> > UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Ashley Nicholas [mailto:Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za
> <mailto:Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za>]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:04 PM
> > To: Richard Zander; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
> > characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree. Classifications are hierarchical, cladograms are not.
> However,
> > both convey different information and perspectives on
> biodiversity --
> > which need not be in conflict.
> >
> > Richard, I am interested that you say that phenograms cannot be
> equated
> > to a hypothesis -- I hope you are not asserting that they are
> the truth?
> > Surely, in the end, all the results of any analyses can be used to
> > induce hypotheses or can be interpreted as a hypothesis? Or they can
> > also be discarded as unhelpful or empirically questionable.
> >
> > I am not sure what your end paragraph is about. What questions
> are we
> > talking about? I think we, as a generation, have a better
> understanding
> > and insight into what is happening and what has happened in the past
> > regarding our universe and the phenomena that manifest within
> what we
> > perceive as reality. But, in the end, I still agree with Popper, and
> > some of his predecessors, that all knowledge has some degree of
> > uncertainty. Scientific consensus does not make something true.
> > Newtonian determinism was replaced by Einstein and Relativity. I
> wonder
> > how many of our most treasure hypotheses, especially those that are
> > powerfully predictive, will still be up held by empirical
> scientists in
> > 300 years time?
> >
> > Ashley
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Richard Zander [Richard.Zander at mobot.org
> <mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org>]
> > Sent: 13 November 2012 17:52
> > To: Ashley Nicholas; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
> > characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics
> >
> > The resulting phenogram is not a hypothesis, it is the result of an
> > analysis of properties of nesting in a data set limited to data
> > informative of those properties. Evolution is not nesting, but
> nesting
> > can be informative if you think about it.
> >
> > Phylogenetics leaps from nesting to classification without
> explaining
> > the nesting in terms of serial macroevolutionary transformations of
> > taxa.
> >
> > Classification is nesting, evolution is not nesting.
> >
> > Hey, I think after years and years we are slowly, slowly
> converging on
> > agreeing what the question is for all those answers in the
> literature.
> >
> > ____________________________
> > Richard H. Zander
> > Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> > Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> > Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> > UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of Ashley
> Nicholas
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:01 AM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Subject: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological
> characters
> > -- UPGMA is not cladistics
> >
> > John you are right,
> >
> > UPGMA is a phenetics method and is not eplicitly evolutionary.
> It only
> > measures similarity, and similarity is not always a good
> indicator of
> > descent from a common ancestor. This is especially true in flowering
> > plants where convergent evolution/homoplasy is rife.
> >
> > Analogous (rather than homologous) base pair sequences are
> probably less
> > common than in morphology -- so maybe molecular systematists can get
> > away with approximating it to an evolutionary tree. However, in
> the end
> > it is not an explicit evolutionary tree -- and this needs to be
> > acknowledged rather than ignored (which is what usually happens).
> > However, no matter what, the resulting phenogram is a
> hypothesis. This
> > hypothesis is as valid as any other hypothesis (until falsified)
> -- and
> > probably carries some interesting insightes and may generate some
> > interesting questions for further explorations.
> >
> > The text books say a minum of 60 characters is needed but I
> would think
> > the number of characters needed would depend on the size of the
> group
> > being analysed. Some statistician has probably established this??
> >
> > Regards
> > Ashley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> > Sent: 10 November 2012 17:08
> > To: Sami Rabei
> > Cc: TAXACOM
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] cladistic analysis for morphological
> characters
> >
> > In my opinion its ok to make a cladistic analysis for any number of
> > characters. It just depends where those characters are clustered
> within
> > the group analyzed as to the result. I suspect that unless the
> > characters are dispersed throughout the 44 species, there will
> be some
> > clades that have some measure of good support, others that do
> not, and
> > others that whose relationships are unresolved.
> >
> > I'm a bit out of touch with all methods, but I recall UPGMA is a
> > phenetic method?
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Sami Rabei
> <samirabei at mans.edu.eg <mailto:samirabei at mans.edu.eg>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All
> >>
> >> I have 81 morphological characters for 44 species. it is right
> to make
> >> a cladistic analysis for them. If it is ok which program I can use
> >> it.On the other hand I did UPGMA .
> >>
> >> Many Thanks in advance
> >>
> >> All the best.
> >>
> >> Sami Rabei
> >>
> >> http://mansoura.academia.edu/SamiRabei
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> With my Best Wishes
> >> Sami Hussein Rabei, Ph.D.
> >> Botany Department
> >> Faculty of Science,
> >> Damietta University
> >> New Damietta , Post Box 34517
> >> Damietta
> >> Egypt .
> >>
> >> Tel. Mobile: 002 0127 3601618
> >> Tel. Work: 002 057 2403981
> >> Tel. Home: 002 057 2403108
> >> Fax: 002 057 2403868
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> >>
> >> (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> >> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
> > ======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->:
> > http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer =======
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
> >
> > ======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->:
> > http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer =======
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
>
> --
> Richard J. Jensen, Professor
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> Tel: 574-284-4674 <tel:574-284-4674>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto: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
> <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms here
>
>
--
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list