"...arguing to argue is not productive. And one can simply read this thread to see that discussion without comprehension is not productive."

I do not know what you mean by "productive." I made my point. You made yours. It is obvious that we disagree and that we haven't changed each other's minds. It is obvious that many cladists do not give a hoot about heterogeneous taxa. In fact some of them seem to derive some sort of perverse pleasure by deliberately creating heterogeneous taxa even if it can be avoided. That much is clear by their inclusion of Hyla crucifer, Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina in Pseudacris. Perhaps they do it deliberately to annoy the Darwinians. Perhaps they are trying to illustrate, by example, what Frost and Etheridge mean by taxa that consist of "my car and 3 geese."

As Moriarty and Cannatella explained, they are merely following "most checklists and field guides" in retaining Hyla regilla, Hyla cadaverina and Hyla crucifer in Pseudacris. That means not all field guides or checklists agree with their taxonomic arrangement. Indeed, the latest edition of R. C. Stebbins' field guide retains Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina in Hyla. Stebbins thus shows us that Hennigian classification is by no means universally accepted amongst biologists. In fact, even some cladists are beginning to come to their senses and they are departing from strict Hennigian practices. The recent rejection of Frost and Etheridge's lumping of Chameleonidae and Agamidae, and the resurrection of the family Iguanidae, by some systematists, including Frost and Etheridge themselves, is a good example. Alas, not all cladists have come to their senses. Some of them still insist on straightjacketing themselves with Hennigian dogma.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]