[Taxacom] The "land plant" taxon (and the paraphyly issue)

[Curtis Clark]

On 2012-09-09 7:54 PM, Ken Kinman wrote:
> Dear All,          Reducing the huge and diverse "land plant" taxon to the rank of Class is clearly an attempt to avoid paraphyly of its mother taxon, Class Charophyceae.

A Phylocode proponent would say that's why we need rankless 
classification. There are plenty of bad solutions to any problem. :-)

> Anyway, I just ran across a relevant paper (which I had not heard about) on the debate between those who accept paraphyletic taxa and those who do not accept them under any circumstances (the latter who I usually refer to as "strict cladists").  Unfortunately, the article by Mats Envall (2008) seems to be hidden behind a paywall.  Sounds like very interesting reading for anyone who is interested (and would be interested in a PDF myself).  Anyway, here's the title:
> On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and patternMATS ENVALL, 2008Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 94, Issue 1, pages 217?220, May 2008

Mats Envall was blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing; he is far 
more dismissive and insulting to cladists than anyone on Taxacom. My 
understanding from his relentless posts is that his opposition to clades 
and monophyly is philosophical (based on the nature of groups) rather 
than biological. I'll see whether I can get a copy of the article.

-- 
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768