Posted by:
RSNewton
at Fri Aug 8 12:46:12 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RSNewton ]
New and better characters are being discovered all the time. These will shed more light on the branching order of this group. Besides, there are equally valid alternatives to classify organisms even if one only takes into account branching order. Kluge, for example, states that he could have recognized one, two or three genera in classifying Calabaria, Charina and Lichanura. All three alternatives are equally valid according to his hypothesis of branching order. The decision to pick any particular one is thus totally arbitrary. Unfortunately Kluge picks the arrangement that is the most disruptive; so do Utiger et al. Even if some of the ratsnakes are more closely related to each other than to other ratsnakes, species groups or subgenera can be used instead of resurrecting old genera and naming new ones. The goal for a taxonomist should be minimal taxonomic destruction, but it appears that some Hennigians are aiming for the maximum number of disruptive changes, even if they do not have a hypothesis of branching order. An unresolved polytomy is not a hypthesis of branching order. Other Hennigians appear obligated to support whatever taxonomic decision fellow Hennigians make. Scientists who are not Hennigians need not follow their need.
[ Hide Replies ]
- Pantherophis, a preliminary review - RSNewton, Tue Aug 5 00:29:14 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - jfirneno, Tue Aug 5 19:28:42 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - Terry Cox, Wed Aug 6 11:34:07 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - patricia sherman, Wed Aug 6 15:20:03 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - WW, Thu Aug 7 03:19:24 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - Matt Campbell, Thu Aug 7 11:17:37 2003
|
RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - RSNewton, Fri Aug 8 12:46:12 2003