Mail*Link(r) SMTP FWD>RE>Phylogeny continued

Gregory J. Watkins-Colwell writes:

-------------------------------------- Date: 28/07/1995 19:34 From: Gj...@aol.com so then, Mr. Lamboy, how do we make phylogenetic systematics better? How do we improve ourselves from what you view as being false and empty? What's your answer to this problem about which you are clearly passionate?

Greg

Gregory J. WAtkins-Colwell 155 Booth St. Stratford, CT 06497

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren responds:

Dear Gregory:

I am delighted you have asked the question of how we can make phylogenetic systematics better. I think that phylogenies would be improved if they were constructed from all the data available to the expert(s) in the group (including information from cladistic and phenetic analyses as well as other statistical methods), AFTER these workers have examined most of the available specimens in museum or herbarium collections, have observed the taxa in their native habitats, have considered ecological, physiological, anatomical, biochemical, behavioral, macromolecular, geographical, chromosomal, etc., characteristics, have examined type specimens, read the literature [including nomenclature] (present AND past) about the group, and have mentally and subjectively integrated all of that information into a coherent classification that was consciously constructed so that it would be useful to educated laymen and interested amateurs. A classification and estimated phylogeny so constructed is "infinity" more valuable to me than one that is devised from the sequencing of a few genes by someone who may not even know what the organisms look like. Yes, such a classification/phylogeny will take a long time to produce; I view it as the culmination of a life's work. No, one will not be able to construct one as one's disseration topic. Yes, such a classification will be subjective to a greater or lesser degree. No, I am not disturbed by that--rather the fact that such a classification benefitted from the marvelous integretive capacity of a colleague's mind is its strength. Since many posters to this thread seem not to be disturbed by the inherent uncertainty in the phylogenies produced mechanically, they certainly could have no objection to the uncertainty that might creep in to a phylogeny/classification constructed as I have outlined above. I think that good systematics is partly science (objective) and partly art (subjective). Systematics has been damaged considerably, I think, by the refusal of many of its practioners to recognize this.

-Warren