Pattern taxonomy
2012; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Sueco
10.1111/cla.12003
ISSN1096-0031
Autores Tópico(s)Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
ResumoCladisticsVolume 29, Issue 3 p. 228-229 Free Access Pattern taxonomy James S. Farris, James S. Farris Göteborgs Botaniska Trädgård, Carl Skottsbergs Gata 22A, SE-413 19 Göteborg, Sweden Molekylärsystematiska laboratoriet, Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA E-mail address: msl-farr@nrm.seSearch for more papers by this author James S. Farris, James S. Farris Göteborgs Botaniska Trädgård, Carl Skottsbergs Gata 22A, SE-413 19 Göteborg, Sweden Molekylärsystematiska laboratoriet, Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA E-mail address: msl-farr@nrm.seSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 October 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12003Citations: 11AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."—Mark Twain Sir, Williams and Ebach (2008), who advocated Nelson and Platnick's (1991) three-taxon analysis (3ta), were hostile to evolutionary (transformational) ideas, calling the notion of transformation a "myth" (p. 259). They particularly disliked phylogenetic systematics (p. 123): Pattern cladistics [as they called their view] was — and still is — a reaction against transformational ''phylogenetics'', be that of taxa (Ernst Haeckel) or characters (Willi Hennig, numerical cladists, etc.). In the course of reacting against Hennig and cladists, Williams, Ebach, and their allies have advanced a variety of remarkable claims.11 For references and detailed discussion, see the papers cited below. It has been maintained, for example, that parsimony was "phenetic" by definition—once the definition was suitably juggled: that the Wagner method (which was already in use in the 1950s) was rooted in the numerical taxonomy of the 1960s and 1970s; that parsimony was not Hennigian because Hennig used only compatible characters, did not apply reversals, and/or did not use absences as characters; that reversals (which parsimony can apply while 3ta cannot) were transformational, did not really occur, and would be symplesiomorphies if they did; that reversals could not be used as evidence because one could not answer "reversal to what?", and also because symplesiomorphies were not homologies and were not to be explained by common ancestry; that parsimony amounted to interpretation 1, made choice of outgroup moot, and grouped by symplesiomorphy; that parsimony grouped by homoplasy—and also that it distorted data when concluding homoplasy—and also that it did not draw conclusions of homoplasy; and that reconstructing the states of stem species (as parsimony does and 3ta does not) should not be done because it would be transformational. Most of those arguments are pure fabrications, the rest being thinly disguised appeals to creationism or else mere word games—all are worthless. Yet the publication of such material had been increasing, a good deal of it dating from 2011 or 2012. Feeling that the literature should not simply be abandoned to inundation by nonsense, I therefore devoted some recent papers (Farris, 2011, 2012a,b,c,d,e,f,g) to exposing those deceptions. That has now prompted a further reaction from Ebach and Williams (2012; hereinafter EW), who begin: We find identifying a general purpose to [Farris'] epistolary barrage a little hard to discover as we see no larger message, no source of inspiration for progress … Apparently I was too subtle before. My purpose was to refute the utterly fraudulent propaganda that anti-transformationalists had so obsessively spread, my message being one of blessed relief, that honest cladists need not be concerned with that propaganda and can go on with the inspiration they already have, Hennig's vision of a phylogenetic system. To be sure, authors who have long despised Hennig may find that message less inspirational than phylogeneticists would, but at least EW do seem to realize that my refutation of their propaganda was effective. They make no attempt to rebut any part of my discussions (none of which they even cite), and some of their other comments seem designed to deny their old position by insinuation (EW, p. 1): Farris's science history... [seems] postmodern [?] (i.e. people who criticise Wagner parsimony are "anti-evolutionary" or "creationist"). So write the authors who called transformation a myth. Further (EW, p. 1): Farris's science history ... appears Whiggish (i.e. Wagner parsimony is the historically "correct" outcome of Hennig's phylogenetic systematics) Deciphered, this means that EW seem to have finally given up their repeated efforts to concoct purported disagreements of principle between parsimony and Hennig. Last, but certainly not least (EW, p. 1): Farris has unwittingly created a fictional straw man, namely the "3tans". Of course 3tans (advocates of 3ta) are fictional—in just the same way that transformation is mythical! Having advocated 3ta and libelled parsimony for years, EW now apparently plan on insisting that (with apologies to Yogi Berra) they never said all those things they said. Denying their long advocacy of 3ta is not EW's only purpose, however; they also want to erase noteworthy parts of Williams et al. (2010; hereinafter WEW). According to EW (p. 1): … as if its [systematics'] principles are so clear they never need discussing or stating. That may well be true as, for us, we see an honourable and exacting history stretching back to Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1813), perhaps further, a view we have already expressed in a seemingly much misunderstood paper (Williams et al., 2010). WEW (p. 188) did discuss de Candolle, emphasizing his importance as a predecessor of Hennig: We offer the view that Candolle is the link between Linnaeus and Hennig, … They wrote that de Candolle had introduced the concept of homology—as "natural affinity" (WEW, p. 183)—and their treatment of Hennig also centred on homology (WEW, p. 175, emphasis theirs): The characters on Hennig's tree are homologies. That is, they express relationships. That, however, was not correct. The characters on Hennig's trees are actually synapomorphies—and those might be shared absences (Hennig, 1966, p. 95): In general we speak only of the homology of organs, but a 'character' may also be the absence of an organ ... the [secondary] absence of wings in the Anoplura [sucking lice] and Mallophaga [biting lice] is a synapomorphous character, whereas in the Collembola, Protura, etc. it is a symplesiomorphous character. WEW's motive for the misattribution was that they wanted to group by homology, meaning (to them) observed sameness of structures (WEW, p. 187): Classification is meant to make sense of relationships by looking for sameness, which is observable, rather than an event, which is only partially observable. In this sense relative relationships, in the sense of sameness or homology, are better ways to classify and summarize overall taxic relationships than inferring genealogies or phylogenies ... This is where the cladistic redux [sic] anchors itself — by stating that cladistic relationships are real [observable]. As there is no reason why an observed sameness cannot be a symplesiomorphy, "the cladistic redux" can lead to forming paraphyletic groups. That, however, did not deter WEW, who preferred observed sameness to phylogenetic grouping anyway. Their fabricated attribution to Hennig seems to have been merely a cynical attempt to claim Hennig's prestige for their comically named approach. As I put it when discussing all this before (Farris, 2012d, p. 546): It was not the cladistic anything, only an absurd attempt to disguise syncretism. EW's reaction to that is more denial. They avoid any mention of "the cladistic redux" or WEW's deceptive treatment of Hennig, writing instead that WEW's paper has been "misunderstood"—apparently their code word for accurately quoted. Denials aside, however, EW have not changed their approach. In their new alternative history, they do not mention Hennig in connection with systematic principles, instead describing those principles as dating at least from de Candolle and requiring no further discussion. Evidently EW still plan to allow grouping by symplesiomorphy. Yet EW still want to call themselves cladists, a trick they accomplish by their traditional strategy of switched meanings, tacitly equating cladistics with systematics. Of course such usage (EW do not note) would make arch-anti-Hennigian Ernst Mayr a "cladist" as well, and I would suggest that clarity of communication is ill-served by such manipulations. If meanings are then left unmolested, authors who do not rule out paraphyly are not pattern cladists, but pattern taxonomists. Indeed, that seems a most suitable designation, as the term "taxonomy" was coined by de Candolle. Footnotes 1 For references and detailed discussion, see the papers cited below. References de Candolle, A.P. 1813. Théorie élémentaire de la botanique, ou Exposition du principe de la classification naturelle et de l'art de décrire et d'étudier les végétaux. Déterville, Paris. Google Scholar Ebach, M.E., Williams, D.W., 2012. E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle. Cladistics, in press doi: 10.1111/cla.12004. Google Scholar Farris, J.S., 2011. Systemic foundering. Cladistics 27, 207– 221. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Farris, J.S., 2012a. Fudged "phenetics". Cladistics 28, 231– 233. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Farris, J.S., 2012b. Counterfeit cladistics. Cladistics 28, 227– 228. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Farris, J.S., 2012c. 3ta sleeps with the fishes. Cladistics 28, 422– 436. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Farris, J.S. 2012d. Early Wagner trees, and "the cladistic redux". Cladistics 28, 545– 547. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Farris, J.S., 2012e. Nelson's arrested development. Cladistics, in press. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00404.x. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Farris, J.S., 2012f. Homology and historiography. Cladistics, in press. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00415.x. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Farris, J.S. 2012g. Symplesiomorphies and explanation. Cladistics, in press. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00434.x. Google Scholar Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nelson, G.J., Platnick, N.I., 1991. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7, 351– 366. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Williams, D.M., Ebach, M.C., 2008. Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. Springer Science and Business Media, New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Williams, D.M., Ebach, M.C., Wheeler, Q.D., 2010. Beyond belief. In: D.M. Williams, S Knapp. (Eds.), Beyond Cladistics. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 169– 197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Citing Literature Volume29, Issue3June 2013Pages 228-229 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)