Cladistics vs. Phenetics - questions about current and future usage
tapir
superseded phenetics (e.g., the Linnaean taxonomy) in various fields.
For example, has cladistics enjoyed widespread adoption among all
fields (e.g., Paleontology, Zoology, Entymology, etc.) or is the
Linnaean taxonomy still pervasive? Also, how mature is the
PhyloCode? Is it generally an accepted standard? Does the Linnaean
system still have a place among hobbyists, such as Horticulturalists
and bug collectors? Is it still taught in schools? Or does the
cladistic movement reach all users of biological systematics? What
can we expect in ten years? Will cladistics predominate?
Thanks for your thoughtful input,
Pietro
magdalena1236
> Hello. 锟絀'm trying to ascertain the degree to which cladistics has
> superseded phenetics (e.g., the Linnaean taxonomy) in various fields.
> For example, has cladistics enjoyed widespread adoption among all
> fields (e.g., Paleontology, Zoology, Entymology, etc.) or is the
> PhyloCode? 锟絀s it generally an accepted standard? 锟紻oes the Linnaean
> system still have a place among hobbyists, such as Horticulturalists
> cladistic movement reach all users of biological systematics? 锟絎hat
> can we expect in ten years? 锟絎ill cladistics predominate?
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful input,
> Pietro
Hi,
I can only speak for myself, the Linnaean system is widely used and
acepted, it is still taught in universities to biologist, I do not
think that the Linnaean system is in contradiction with cladistic
movements. The linnaeaen system is more than anything a set of
nomenclatural rules than a method of classification.
Regarding the Phylocode, it is a new system and it is not widely
accepted, but it is much more coherent than the Linaean system, for
example in problematic "lineages" as hybrid species. I think in the
future the phylocode will be more likely to be acepted.
cheers,
Ana
John Wilkins
<pmich...@gmail.com> wrote:
A complex series of questions and answers. My take is this:
Phenetic techniques are still used to identify the fundamental taxa
being classified, but only on data thought to already exclude
homoplasies (i.e., it is not "theory-free").
Cladistics of a sort is ubiquitous, but more often than not is used in
a "blackbox" sort of way with little understanding.
Phylocode is still a minority position. It is not even officially
released.
Linnean classification always was a matter of convenience, and as a
conventional system is still of very great utility, especially in
teaching and communication. The bulk of Linnean groups are paraphyletic
or polyphyetic, but as they are redescribed the tendency has been to
make them monophyletic anyway. In that respect, the difference between
a revised Linnean scheme and Phylocode is only that the former uses
conventional ranks.
In ten years we can confidently predict that taxonomists will still
argue vociferously.
Lorentz
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:59�pm, tapir <pmichelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
The linnaeaen system is more than anything a set of
> nomenclatural rules than a method of classification.
>
Linnean system is just a filing system. It helps you find organisms in
the library. It is not really a classification that leads to
scientific predictions.
There is a difference between nomenclature and canonical
classification. A canonical classification leads to scientific
prediction. Nomenclature helps you find books on organisms in the
library. As a form of nomenclature, the Linean system may be the best.
A good nomenclature should be stable even against scientific
discovery. A good nomenclature system is like a good tradition. It
doesn't have to lead to prediction.
Cladastics is canonical classification. A good cladogram leads
to scientific predictions. Unfortunately, one scientific discovery can
make a cladogram obsolete. So cladastics is actually a poor system of
nomenclature.
Gosh. It looks like the Linnnean system of nomenclature may last
forever! But we need cladastics anyway.