Taxacom: strict cladists war against paraphyletic taxa

Fri Dec 12 07:34:19 CST 2025

Hei Marko,

Your idea indeed came to minds of some researchers, but never materialised.

Sometimes genera are really close to each other, and one may neglect that
difference to merge. But if the difference is so large, merging would
indeed be unnatural. For certain mindset it may seem like solving problems,
but to a specialist it looks like no problems at all. On the contrary, if
one ends up creating 1000 species of Gammarus looking more different than a
sawfly and an ant, this will be a taxonomic disaster. I would not do that.
I would rather accept things as they are, rather than putting facts into a
frame of a dogma.

Sincerely,

Mikhail

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025, 14:53 Marko Mutanen, <Marko.Mutanen at oulu.fi> wrote:

> Hi Mikhail,
>
> This would not be an ideal solution. A much better approach would be to
> merge all the Baikal taxa with Gammarus. In general, I believe this would
> be the preferable outcome, although exceptions may certainly occur. A
> comparable situation arose when several genera of Nematinae (Tenthredinidae
> sawflies) were merged into the large genus Euura. The change was not
> universally welcomed, but the only real alternative - splitting them into
> numerous small genera - would have been a far worse option, especially
> since the species all look more or less the same.
>
> Best,
>
> Marko
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Mikhail
> Daneliya via Taxacom
> Sent: perjantai 12. joulukuuta 2025 14.04
> To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: strict cladists war against paraphyletic taxa
>
> I have been working with amphipod crustaceans, and there is a freshwater
> genus Gammarus. Everyone probably knows it. Its 200+ species look very
> similar. It is hard to doubt they belong to the same genus. Suddenly DNA
> phylogenetics, and have done too, discovers that the Lake Baikal radiation
> of amphipods - numerous endemic families, genera and species of very
> bizarre looking creatures - clearly nests within Gammarus. Would anyone
> dare to desintegrate Gammarus because of its paraphaly? This looks like the
> way evolution goes.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mikhail Daneliya
>
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2025, 01:42 Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom, <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >      The war of strict cladists against paraphyletic taxa has been
> > going on for over 50 years.  My question is how successful that war
> > has been in regarding formal paraphyletic taxa as "unnatural" and to be
> eliminated.
> >  Or as noted below, does strict cladism actually promote "disastrous
> > nomenclatural practices"?
> >                         -------------Ken Kinman
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Paraphyly again defended (and strict cladism promotes "disastrous
> > nomenclatural practices) Kenneth Kinman kinman at
> > hotmail.com<mailto:taxacom%40mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > ?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BTaxacom%5D%20Paraphyly%20again%20defended%20%28and
> > %20strict%20cladism%20promotes%0A%20%22disastrous%20nomenclatural%20pr
> > actices%29&In-Reply-To=%3CCY4PR11MB1480D1096C914E58FD056F53C1240%
> > 40CY4PR11MB1480.namprd11.prod.outlook.com%3E>
> > Mon Apr 15 20:20:45 CDT 2019
> >
> >   *   Previous message: [Taxacom] holotype designation<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/132964.html>
> >   *   Next message: [Taxacom] Paraphyly again defended (and strict
> cladism
> > promotes "disastrous nomenclatural practices)<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/132971.html>
> >   *   Messages sorted by: [ date ]<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/date.html#132970> [
> > thread ]<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/thread.html#132970>
> > [ subject ]<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/subject.html#132970>
> > [ author ]<
> > https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2019-April/author.html#132970>
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Hi All,
> >       I just ran across this 2016 paper.  Yet another publication
> > defending the reality and need for paraphyletic taxa (for a variety of
> > reasons), and it labels strict cladism as promoting "disastrous
> > nomenclatural practices":
> >
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.microbiologyresearch.org%2Fdocserver%2Ffulltext%2Fijsem%2F66%2F12%2F49&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C73c00009e7a64235adb708de39832ee6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C639011432918230335%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C40000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sGL5lzx8zAQ8Ipzxam1XstM%2FLUgYWaLNwu%2FgzSUrwbw%3D&reserved=0
> > 24_ijsem001474.pdf?expires=1555377331&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=537
> > 594F4A96BABC3F0564A74650291D5
> >
> > Abstract:
> > "Yeast systematics has wholeheartedly embraced the phylogenetic approach.
> > Central to this has been the unspoken convention that taxa at all
> > ranks be strictly monophyletic. This can result in a proliferation of
> > small genera and instances of nomenclatural instability, counter to
> > the expected benefit of phylogenetic systematics. But the literature
> > abounds with examples, at all taxonomic levels, where paraphyly is a
> > reality that can no longer be ignored. The very concepts of Bacteria
> > or Archaea, under the constraint of monophyly, are in peril. It is
> > therefore desirable to effect a shift in practices that will recognize
> the existence of paraphyletic taxa."
> >
> > Another Quote from the articles:
> > "Taxonomy sits at an ill-defined confluence of science, craft,
> > ontology and the law. Conscientious systematists aim at making sense
> > of the living world by organizing species into categories that are
> > meaningful not only to themselves, but also to other biologists and
> > the rest of humanity. The last decades have seen undue emphasis placed
> > on creating categories that reflect an erroneous model of
> > cladogenesis, one that is strictly dichotomous and symmetrical. A
> > large proportion of taxa arise not by fission of an ancestral
> > progenitor, but by a budding process that leaves the progenitor
> > enriched by the presence of its offspring. The retention of cohesive
> > parent taxa under a single designation, at the same rank as progeny
> taxa, has the potential to prevent disastrous nomenclatural practices."
> >
> >                 ------------------------Ken Kinman
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For
> > list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list
> information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>
>
>