>>CKing, Let me try to explain this to you again...There are situations when it is clear whether a group is para or polyphyletic. There are other situations when it is not so clear (see example in my other post). Get it?>>



You are not getting it. There are of course situations (lots of them in fact) when not enough is known to determine whether a group is monophyletic or polyphyletic. For example, many paleontologists believe that Dinosauria is monophyletic. Some of their critics, however, point out that the characters used to define Dinosauria may well be convergent similarities. In fact, the late paleontologist Romer considers dinosaurs a polyphyletic group.



These ambiguous situations have nothing to do with the ambiguous term "not monophyletic". Some cladists use this term to deceive the uninitiated of their true intentions. A cladist may want to dismantle an existing taxon because it is paraphyletic, because it is contra to cladistic dogma. But because many biologists do not subscribe to cladistic dogma, they do not distinguish between holophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Therefore some cladists have no luck with their taxonomic proposals. By calling a taxon "not monophyletic," some cladists are trying to mislead the uninitiated into thinking that the taxon under consideration is polyphyletic. But since it is in fact not polyphyletic, a cladist cannot claim that it is without outright lying. So some of them resort to the ambiguous term "not monophyletic" to conceal their true intentions of dismantling paraphyletic taxa, which are considered monophyletic by most biologists, all pheneticists and all Darwinian systematists.



Therefore, the term "not monophyletic" is unnecessary and it cannot be used in cases when not enough is known about the phylogenetic status of a putative taxon. If it is not known whether a group is polyphyletic or not, then how can one assert that it is "non-monophyletic?" For example, how can we apply the term "non-monophyletic" to a group like Dinosauria, which may be paraphyletic or polyphyletic, depending on which authority is referenced? If a group is paraphyletic, then just say so. Hennig invented the term. Cladists cannot stand paraphyletic taxa because of their dogma. If they hate paraphyletic taxa so much, then why not let the world know the real reason (a determined effort to rid this world of paraphyletic taxa) behind a vast majority of the taxonomic proposals made within the last decade? What are the cladists afraid of? Rejection of their taxonomic proposals? If so, then they have a very good reason for hiding their true intentions because a vast majority of biologists still recognize such paraphyletic taxa as Reptilia and Prokaryota.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]