Linnaean "classification", and the problems that first appeared, when

[Thrinaxodon]

When Linnaeus first formed the "classification" "method", he used it
on plants. But, he only identified species by their "sexual" organs.
Which lead to some problems. First and foremost; the pistil would be
classified as one species, while the "male" sexual organ, would get
classified as something else.

The second problem: with the Linnaean method, especially with
reptilia, it is paraphyletic, without the birds (Aves). I think, in
response, we formed a new clade, Sauropsida, with cladistics.
Therefore cladistics is a much better method.

--

Thrinaxodon

A cynodont in a kitchen.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 07/05/2013 20:52, Thrinaxodon wrote:
> When Linnaeus first formed the "classification" "method", he used it
> on plants. But, he only identified species by their "sexual" organs.
> Which lead to some problems. First and foremost; the pistil would be
> classified as one species, while the "male" sexual organ, would get
> classified as something else.

Linnaeus's classification of plants ("The Sexual System") was not a
natural system. Linnaeus knew this. Linnaeus attempted to create a
natural classification, with limited success - various groups of plants
of sizes ranging up to groups like composites and orchids were
identifiable, but how to put these groups together was beyond him.

But I don't think that his system has the problem you describe -
Linnaeus didn't divided species with imperfect flowers into two. All he
had to do was take the count of pistils from the female flowers and the
count of stamens from the male flowers.

The problem it did had was that it was based on a set of traits which a
limited number of states and which are fairly labile, so closely related
plants could end up in greatly distant parts of the classification, and
distantly related plants could end up as neighbours.

I think he fudged things when pistil or stamen count varied within a genus.

>
> The second problem: with the Linnaean method, especially with
> reptilia, it is paraphyletic, without the birds (Aves). I think, in
> response, we formed a new clade, Sauropsida, with cladistics.
> Therefore cladistics is a much better method.
>
> --
>
> Thrinaxodon
>
> A cynodont in a kitchen.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Thrinaxodon]

On May 7, 4:33�pm, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
wrote:

I was going to put, "I recall", which means I could be wrong, it's
just based off of memory. It's been a long time since I read up, on
"the history, of Linnaean classification". Now, that you bring that
up, it "rings a bell". I now recall, that. I should start reading
taxonomy, instead of the usual philosophy, history, classics, haiku,
and physics books.