Talk:Clade/Archive 2

The article (about clade) obviously hasn't been corrected yet

The article (about clade) obviously hasn't been corrected yet. It still says that "a clade is a monophyletic group - that is, a single common ancestor and all its descendants", although the first part (a clade is a monophyletic group) synonymizes clade with monophyletic group and the latter (a single common ancestor and all its descendants) expresses the definition of holophyletic group, when monophyletic group is not synonymous to holophyletic group. When will Wikipedia correctly merge clade with holophyletic group? How long will Wikipedia leave the definition of this devastating conceptual confusion as an explanation of the confusion itself? When will it correctly explain that clade is a confusion of the generic with the specific, that is, of mono- and holophyletic groups? Never? Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that holophyletic appears, per the relevant articles, to just be an uncommon term for monophyletic, I've rolled back the change. There's no reason to replace a common term with an uncommon one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Holophyletic is not synonymous to monophyletic, because also paraphyletic is monophyletic. The notion that they are synonymous is in fact the core of cladism, and it is wrong (as you can understand from the discussion above). Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason and consequences of Wikipedia's fright to disambiguate clade and cladistics

I of course understand the reason why Wikipedia doesn't dare to disambiguate the concepts clade and cladistics. Apart from all worldly reasons like destroying careers (maybe also for the editors of Wikipedia), dis-make illusionary accomplishments, return biological systematics about 40 years (actually putting it back on the scientific tracks again), turn oppressors and oppressed within biological systematics up-side-down, and undress leading cladists like Gareth Nelson and Steve Farris, it actually dismisses belief in general and thus also the belief of ultimate truths. It actually means that truth is relative, that is, that a statement about a part of reality only can be more or less true than another statement about the same part of reality is, and that this relation between statements only can be decided by empirical "falsification" of the least true statement. It thus means that the search for truths has to be performed by excluding non-true statements (i.e., relative to true statements) with facts instead of by supporting statements with facts. Truth is a matter of gray scale instead of black and white, and skepticism is the guiding principle instead of belief. Wikipedia simply doesn't dare to pull away the rug under the believers feet.

Since this fright concerns the principal question of whether truth should be searched by empirical falsification or support, and the former rests on conceptual distinction whereas the latter rests on conceptual confusion, the fright catches Wikipedia between conceptual distinction and conceptual confusion, energetically looking for the neutral ground it requires, but which does not exist. This situation actually invalidates Wikipedia's fundamental principle (i.e., neutrality) by showing that it isn't generically applicable, but that it, in practice, leads to recognition of either belief or science. The former is devastating for an encyclopedia, since it, in practice, denies conceptualization itself, that is, encyclopedias in general. In the lack of a guiding principle to solve the problem, Wikipedia chooses to be democratic, that is, to acknowledge the majority. This principle is, however, not intended to decide statements truthfulness, but to solve differences in opinions in practice. Applied to the former, it may run counter to facts, which is the case for cladistics. A democratic truth may simply be a lie (which history has shown over and over again: hundreds of billions of flies may be wrong although only a single fly contradicts them). Truth is simply not a democratic question. Instead, this principle leads Wikipedia into the self-destructive decision to deny conceptual distinction instead of distinguishing concepts. This decision is the reason for the conceptual mess in the articles about clade, cladistics, holophyletic group, paraphyletic group, phylogeny, evolution and all related concepts, and the mess will spread to all concepts that include time and space if Wikipedia does not put an end to it by acknowledging that clade is synonymous to holophyletic group. Calling me a vandal ought to require explaining away the fact that clade is synonymous to holophyletic group. I will continue illuminating this fact until someone can convince me that it is wrong. Acknowledging facts is for me a fundament for understanding. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are my correct corrections of the definitions of the concepts clade, mono-, holo- and paraphyletic groups constantly being deleted?

Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed

This is going nowhere, except into edit war and endless arguments. And there is no good reason this article and discussion page should be this noisy. Can we have semi-protection, please? — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is going towards consistent and empirically correct definitions of the concepts mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group (on the expense of the inconsistent and empirically erroneous definitions of the concepts clade and cladistics. (Just read the lines after my correction and you'll see what I mean). Semi-protection for what? The cladistic confusion? It cannot be either semi- or totally protected, since it is wrong. It has to be abandonded. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments are, furthermore, not endless. They have ended on this discussion page in that cladism is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically erroneous. I'm just trying to insert these conclusions in the definitions of the concepts. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can user Sidhekin explain, for example, the first sentence after my correction saying that "Because Linnean taxonomy requires that nature is split into nameable pigeon-holes (species, genera, and higher taxa), it breaks down over evolutionary time"? Can categorization "break down"? Does it mean that also encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) "break down" because they "require that nature is split into nameable pigeon-holes"? Does it mean that categorization itself "requires that nature is split into nameable pigeon-holes"? If so, doesn't the categories clade and cladistics also "require that nature is split into nameable pigeon-holes"? Don't cladists see their own pigeon-holes? Is their own glasses invinsible for them? Do they conceptualize with concepts and without concepts? Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is something that has "broken down" for cladists, but it isn't the Linnean system (as they seem to believe), but rather their reasoning (if it wasn't broken from the beginning). I'm trying to explain why the article is a conceptual mess, and Sidhekin replies by begging for semi-protection of the mess. I'm telling Sidhekin, and everybody else that is interested, that the cladistic mess is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) - therefore cannot be consistently formulated with words, and falsified by facts - therefore does not agree with facts. It is simply both conceptually and empirically wrong; it is anti-correct, that is, wrong. The correct conceptualization is that monophyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and its descendants", holophyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and all its descendants, and paraphyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and some of its descendants, whereof monophyletic group is the generic concept for holo- and paraphyletic group. This is the conceptualization the Linnean system rests on. The fundamental inconsistency that objectivity cannot solve, but instead has to synthesize, is that a similarity over time is indistinguishable from a similarity in time. "Solving" this problem cladistically is nothing but a confusion of a distinction, and it does not solve this problem with distinction, which the Linnean system does, but only confuses what is distinguished. When will cladists be separated from daddy's toolbox? When will encyclopedias be totally protected (not only semi-protected) from cladists? Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed (from the other side)

This is going nowhere, except into edit war and endless arguments. And there is no good reason this article and discussion page should be this messy. Can we have semi-protection (for a consistent and correct definition of the concept), please? Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is clade synonymous to monophyletic group ?

The battle about the article concerns whether the concept clade is synonymous to the concept monophyletic group or not. I have demonstrated in a scientific article that it isn't, and also explained on this discussion page that it isn't, why in h-ll doesn't the editors of Wikipedia protect my side? I am prepared to discuss this issue with everyone (may it be Steve Farris, Gareth Nelson, Mark Siddall, Diana Lipscomb, Jim Carpenter, Kevin de Quieroz, Pablo Goloboff, Per Sundberg or Mikael Härlin). I have, actually, already discussed it with most of them without any of them being capable of providing comprehensible arguments. Worst of all was Pablo. He shouldn't even be allowed into the room where daddy keeps his toolbox. Clade is thus not synonymous to monophyletic group, but to holophyletic group; holo- and paraphyletic group instead being specific varieties of the generic monophyletic group. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the definition of original research has not changed over the last six months. That's all you've presented. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's completely true - by your definition of monophyletic group. However, your definition is yet to gain widespread acceptance. Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, must resist following new ideas until they have gained widespread acceptance. We'll have to wait to see if the scientific community sees the truth of your arguments and adopts your terminology, but until they do your terminology remains a minority view, and adopting it in this article would be premature (and confuse those readers who have yet to be enlightened by your article). So - the changes you are proposing are very welcome indeed - but not until your definitions of holophyletic and monophyletic become common parlance in scientific circles. For now, your points are addressed fairly in the footnotes in the article, thanks to your comments. Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"My" definition of monophyletic group is not "my" definition, but an agreed on definition. Noone denies that also paraphyletic groups is a monophyletic group. What remains is only straightening out the relation between mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group, and between them and reality, which is what I do by explaining the Linnean system. His system is actually analogous to multidimensional statistics, where clade corresponds to segment in the data space, which does, indeed, correspond to thing in the geometry space, but which corresponds to gray instead of either white or black. Objects and their properties loop around each other over these two spaces to avoid to be confused. Cladistics is simply a "denial" of a fact one either does not understand or does not want to understand. In practice, it is a return to the approach the ancient Greek Parmenides claimed about 2,500 years ago, about 200 years before Aristotle invented our consistent conceptualization in terms of generics and specifics.

The worst part of not acknowledging this explanation (i.e., this fact) is that it does not acknowledge (actually denies) science contrary to facts. It means that Wikipedia leads readers into an anti-scienticic (and anti-conceptual) approach as long as it allows the confusion of mono- and holophyletic group remain in this article. I have long ago given up my attempts to come on discussing terms with cladists, now I'm only concerned about the students, that is, our kids. Cladistics is, of course, welcome to only acknowledge holophyletic groups, but then we have to understand that this is what it does. Confusions are not dangerous as long as we can understand them. Best, Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether your definition is agreed on or not, the fact remains that it is not in widespread use. The definition of monophyletic group that you use is not the same as the one that every scientist I know uses. Until you manage to convince the scientific majority to use your 'agreed on' terminology, I'm afraid that it has no place in Wikipedia. Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you (and every "scientist" (probably cladist) you know) contradict my statement that paraphyletic groups are monophyletic groups per definition?! I thought we had clarified this issue. Holophyletic group is "an ancestor and all its descendants", paraphyletic group is "an ancestor and some of its descendants", and monophyletic group is "an ancestor and its descendants". Holo- and paraphyletic groups are thus two specifics of monophyletic groups. I know (and try to explain) that cladism confuses holo- and monophyletic group (like you and the "scientists" you know), and try to explain that this confusion is anti-scientific (and anti-conceptual). The "scientists" you know are thus an impossibility. There can be no scientists that denies science. If they are scientists, then they acknowledge my explanation; if they deny it, then they are not scientists. Science is not a play with daddy's tools, but a consistent discussion about reality. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are the definitions that you use, and they are internally consistent. You are not a professional scientist at an academic institute, and I have yet to meet such a scientist that would use the terms as you define them. The scientists acknowledge the same concepts that you have, but they have different words for them. If and when you convince the scientific community to use your words, Wikipedia will follow suit. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the above discussion in tabular form. Mats' term is what he considers to be the 'correct' term; the 'term in common use' is the term which the scientific community uses and understands.

Individuals in question	Mats' term	Term in common use	Clade or not?
an ancestor and all its descendants	Holophyletic group	Monophyletic group	Yes
an ancestor and some of its descendants	Paraphyletic group	Paraphyletic group	No
an ancestor and its descendants	Monophyletic group	Group	Not necessarily

Mats, as I understand it, you are of the viewpoint that "This article uses the terms in the 'Term in common use' column, but should use the terms in the "Mats' term" column". Does this fairly express the action that you would like us to take? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. This issue is, however, just as difficult to understand as multidimensional statistics is. First, we have to agree on that the concept concept is defined as "a set of words that is one because they deal with one object". Then, we have to agree on that what we're discussing is the definitions of the concepts Martin tabulates (that is, mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group). Then, I can comment that the first column gives the definitions of the concepts in the second column as far as I can see, but the third column appears to lack the concept holophyletic group, although this is defined as the second column specifies, and the fourth column expresses an ambiguity on the third row. This ambiguity actually manifests the controversy. The question is whether a generic (or genericity) is concrete or an abstraction. Cladism categorizes one generic and two specifics as only one concept (i.e., clade), which is semantically correct if the generic is of the same kind as the specifics. The question is thus if all of them are of the same kind, that is, concrete or abstractions, or if they are of different kinds, concrete and abstractions? The answer is the latter, that is, that they are concrete and abstractions (i.e., that they are of different kinds). (Compare a sausage and it cut into two pieces). The concrete are the two specifics (i.e., the pieces), and the abstract is the generic (i.e., the sausage). The fundamental question above, i.e., whether the generic (or genericity) is concrete or an abstraction, is thus answered by that the generic is an abstraction. It means that the specifics actually is the content of the generic concept, i.e., that holo- and paraphyletic group actually is the content of monophyletic group. It, in turn, means that the concepts holo- and paraphyletic group fit the definition of monophyletic group. Now, cladists claim that this consistent explanation is just a semantic construction, whereas their approach is "natural", but this claim is falsified by facts (i.e., the fact that time is relative to space). It means that cladism is both inconsistent and wrong. It is simply the most eroneous approach one can find. It is consistent and correct conceptualization up-side-down. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against cladists

I have nothing against cladists. I just demand that they, similar to all us others, keep to consistent definitions of concepts. Using singular concepts that are defined as both a generic (like fruit) and one of its specifics (like apples) makes sensible discussions impossible. I, of course, understand that they dislike pears, but why not say so? Why not say that they prefer holophyletic groups (i.e. apples) and dislike paraphyletic groups (i.e., pears)? Well (if I should answer the question), it is because it would reveal their paranoia. "Preferring" holophyletic groups only reveals that one hasn't understood the problem. The problem is not whether holo- or paraphyletic groups are "natural" groups, but how we shall conceptualize groups of things that has a common origin. This problem was consistently solved by the Linnean system. This system is simply perfect. Linné systematized the world and I explained what he did. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.63 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Linné did a good job of classifying the natural world, but no-one has yet adapted it to classify stem groups. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A good job?! He hit the core. The problem with stem groups is that they cannot be the same in reality as in the abstract (i.e., in the data space), since it would confuse one with two, that is, thing with kind, or process with pattern. This problem is actually the problem that what we look at is not the same thing as what we see (check "ce'st ne pas un pipe" by Magritte). If it had been, then reality would not have been separated from us. This problem is not solvable, but instead has to be overcomed. This it is by Aristotle's synthetic conceptualization and Linné's hierarchical organization of it. The solution that cladists (including Martin) chases is thus simply a carrot in front of their eyes. Hennig's confusion makes them think they have found it, but the truth is that they will continue their endless chase inside cladism, because it is endless per definition. Cladists sometimes claim that also science is endless per definition, and although this is true, science does at least close up on the truth per definition, which cladism does not. Cladism is actually what we had before Linné. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept ''Stem group'' is actually the core of this discussion. The definition of thing and of group means that a group originates by dichotomous splitting of a thing. The group wasn't before the splitting, but it is in the form of two things after the splitting. Considering the whole process, one can define that all three (i.e., the ancestor and its descendants) compose a stem group. This group can, however, neither originate nor change, since nothing is before it and nothing after. It is a frozen image of reality. This may not pose a problem to cladists, but worse is that reality (over eternal time) is not separable into such stem groups defined by properties. This statement means that it is neither possible to partition reality into such stem groups nor possible to define these impossible stem groups by properties. These impossibilities resides in that things and their properties are not synonymous, and that neither of them is more true than the other. Stem group is thus an impossible concept. It is analogous to eating the cake and keeping it. It is analogous to God. It is the concept that "those that look for the truth within words" chase like a carrot in front of the donkey's eyes. For more knowledge about this issue, I recommend consulting Gareth Nelson. He knows the truth, but refuses to acknowledge it. He is also loaded with knowledge. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you don't understand the concept of a stem group. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x gives a good explanation; it might be worth your reading that. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this link does not appear to work....Plantsurfer (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept stem group is internally inconsistent by being both one and several (i.e., a confusion of thing and kind). Why do you persue this idiotic battle defending the conceptual mess in the article that you want to get rid of? I'm explaining that this mess is due to that the thought behind the concept is inconsistent (and also empirically erroneous); why do you try to discard me instead of the mess? Clade is synonymous to holophyletic group, just check the definitions in Wikipedia and you will see. Both clade and holophyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and all its descendants". There's no difference between them. Synonymizing clade with monphyletic group, as in this article, actually also synonymizes clade with paraphyletic group, which some biological systematists have discovered and use in the form of paraphyletic clade. The cladistic wish will never become a truth. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The DOI should point to the article at http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Scholar/Scholar.php?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&cluster=1271787822270292702 - Budd & Jensen 2000, A Critical Reappraisal of the Bilaterian Phyla.

Mats, here's where we're at. We fully appreciate your point re. clade=holophyletic group. However, you use holophyletic group where scientists use the term 'monophyletic group', and you use the term 'monophyletic group' to mean something different to what practising scientists use it to mean. As I've said before, Wikipedia uses terms in their most common meaning. Until the term 'monophyletic group' is widely used in the sense that you suggest it should be, it would cause confusion to use it in your sense of the word. We can repeat this statement as many times as you would like us to, but you are no longer bringing anything to this discussion page that you haven't said many times before. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not use the expression "practising scientists" for cladists. This is just another manifestation of the cladistic confusion. I'm sure that Martin has observed that "practising scientists" (i.e., biological systematists) also use the expression paraphyletic clades, which is both consistent and correct (using the cladistic definition of the concept clade, since it means that clade is synonymous to monophyletic group, and that paraphyletic group factually is a kind of monophyletic group), but which appears erroneous in the light of cladism. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to discard cladism in order to be sensible. Your (Martin's) suggestion will cement the mess in these articles, and open for a spreading of it to all neighboring articles, and so on. Cladism is a fundamentally anti-scientific and anti-conceptual approach. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This article has been semi-protected to stop IP edits by User:Consist. This editor was indefinitely blocked a long time ago but constantly creates new sockpuppets to edit articles like this one. His most recent incarnation is 83.254.20.63 (talk · contribs). See a report at the 3RR noticeboard. Since the article Talk page is unprotected at the moment, he will most likely continue to post here. In my opinion there is no need for anyone to reply to Consist's Talk postings. (Since he already possesses the truth about cladistics and phylogeny, discussion is futile). Background on Consist is at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Consist and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Consist. His indefinite block notice is on the page User:Consist. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "creating sockpuppets" or "reincarnating"; I'm just changing address. Me is not identical to my address, just as no thing is identical to its name, as cladists have a tendency to erroneously believe.

And, I'm not editing articles "like this one", but correcting the articles that explains the concepts mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group, and clade and cladistics, because cladistics confuse the concept clade with the concept monophyletic group when clade actually is synonymous with the concept holophyletic group. The concept monophyletic group is instead the generic concept for the two specific concepts holo- and paraphyletic group.

EdJohnston's statement that I "possess the truth about cladistics and phylogeny" is ambiguous in pointing both to reality and to our conceptualization of reality, that is, both to reality and to our representations of reality. It is true in the latter of these aspects, I do understand our tool "conceptualization", and how the concepts above relate to each other and to reality. This understanding is what I'm trying to convey to the editors of Wikipedia with the (constructive) aim to straighten out the conceptual confusion we all see in the referenced articles above. I'm trying to explain that cladistics confuses these two aspects (i.e., reality and our conceptualization of reality), turning them up-side-down, with the definitional confusion of the concept clade with the concept monophyletic group. (I'm thus not claiming to "possess the truth" about any specific phylogeny). This aim (and content of the aim) should, however, be clear by now for at least the users Martin, Philcha and Plantsurfer. It did also appear to be clear for the user EdJohnston (above) a couple of months ago, but this clarity now appears to be gone. The question at this point is whether Wikipedia has the guts to straighten out this conceptual confusion.

I also have to add that cladists' comprehension that this controversy "only" is a semantic issue is wrong. If it had been, I would not have taken the pain of trying to resolve it. Cladism does neither agree with facts (i.e., the fact that time is relative), meaning that cladism also is existentially wrong. This error is, however, just as difficult to understand as the fact itself is difficult to understand. The controversy is thus ultimately an issue about understanding contra non-understanding, or intelligence contra stupidity. The most interesting aspect of this controversy is how intelligent hypocrisy, self-interest and stupidity join in a fight against sense (i.e., the Linnean system). It is just as if they cannot bare to see the limitations of conceptualization that Linné so elegantly summarized. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gray, white and black

Intelligent people partition reality into three parts: gray, white and black, and then discuss reality using these concepts. Less intelligent people believe that this is not a partitioning, but instead a matter of existence, and then deny black. An encyclopedia that adopts the latter approach is a catastrophe. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying cladism, I'm falsifying it

I'm not denying cladism. I'm trying to explain how conceptualization works, and that facts falsify the cladistic confusion of the generic with the specific. The issue is not about which of science or cladism (which are anti-poles) that is true, but about which of them that agrees with facts. Approaches cannot be true of false, but only consistent and/or agreeing with facts. Both science and cladism are consistent on the bases of their own premises: science that things exist and cladism that kinds exist, but both cannot agree with facts since they contradict each other. I'm only explaining that it is cladism that is falsified by facts (i.e., the fact that time is relative to space). It means that cladism is wrong. This statement is thus true as judged by the definition of true as "agreeing with facts". And, since a truth is a fact, this fact explains the conceptual mess in the articles about mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group, and clade and cladistics. This conceptual mess is thus just a consequence of the approach (i.e., cladism) being erroneous. I'm thus not "acknowledging" or "denying" anything, but only explaining the situation.

(BTW, the statement above (by Martin) that "noone has adapted Linné's system to the concept stem group is due to the fact that cladism is wrong. The concept stem group" is actually a conceptual confusion of one thing with two consecutive things, and thus a confusion of thing with kind. It is actually the entrance to cladism. The reason that "noone has adapted Linné's system to this concept" is thus that it is impossible to adapt a correct system to an erroneous concept). Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the "fact that time is relative to space" to an understanding of the concept clade? Plantsurfer (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It falsifies the definitional confusion that clade is synonymous to monophyletic group. This synonymization does at the same time equalize the concept time with the concept space, which, in turn, (erroneously) excludes any possibility for time to be relative to space. What it actually does, is that it turns the relative concept holophyletic group into an absolute concept by confusing it with the absolute concept monophyletic group at the same time turning the relative concept time into the absolute concept space, which, thus, is falsified by the fact that time is relative to space. It simply turns right into wrong by the confusing definition. A conceptualization that agrees with facts has to acknowledge that holo- and paraphyletic group are relative concepts: a group of things is a holophyletic group relative to a paraphyletic group (or another holophyletic group) and vice versa. The concept all is conceptually relative to the concept some. Common to both these kinds of groups (i.e., holo- and paraphyletic group) is that they are monophyletic groups (i.e., of a single origin). It means that a single restricted kind (for example all biological species according to Darwin's model of their origin) is ambiguous with respect to holo- and paraphyly: it is neither all nor some, just like a single thing is neither all nor some. Relative concepts are not applicable on singularies (since they have nothing to be relative to). The relevance of the fact that "time is relative to space" (Plansurfer's quotation marks are misplaced, "fact" should be excluded from them) to an understanding of the concept clade is thus that it falsifies the present definition of this concept in the article. It means that the present definition of the concept clade in Wikipedia does not agree with facts, that is, that it is falsified by facts. It ought to state that clade is synonymous to holophyletic group. Relativity cannot be turned into absolutivity by definitions, because concepts do not create reality, but only describe it. (No definition can, for example, place me on the moon, even if cladists may wish that I was there). Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(The present definitional confusion does two wrongs at the same time: 1. confuses holophyletic group with monophyletic group and 2. confuses time with space, but, unfortunately, two wrongs do not make one right). Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor's decision

Mats, I think you will find that Wikipedia's editors have made their decision, and it is that we will not be complying with your constant demands at this time, and will not do so until your terminology becomes accepted as the consensus view of the scientific community. At least one of the articles on Wikipedia cites your paper, and acknowledges the debate, and you will have to be content with that. Further hectoring will get you nowhere and waste your time. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to other language wikis

Could someone please add the following link? [[ta:கிளைப்பாட்டியல்]] Thanks.--C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference between "clade" and "lineage"?

I don't understand the difference between the two terms. It seems like they represent the same concept, but maybe there is a technical difference I am missing. There should be a clarification on this page describing the exact difference for fools like me. I am also going to post this on the Lineage (evolution) discussion page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.51.114 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The shortcommings of Linnaean taxonomy: Archaeopteryx

The article state that Since modern birds are not descended from Archaeopteryx, it cannot fit into the Linnean taxon 'Aves' (birds). How is it Aves can't be defined as a bird in the Linnaean sence? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean by 'a bird in the Linnaean sense'? If 'Aves' is a clade, it consists of the last common ancestor of all birds, and all of its descendants - therefore it will not include Archaeopteryx. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but the section is still not right. Archaeopteryx was classed as a bird under the Linnaean scheme by Huxley when it was found, and has been trumpeted as a the most primitivemember of Aves (or even the forefather) under Linnaean taxonomy for the last century-and-a-half. Clearly, the statement that Archaeopteryx can not be classed as a bird under Linnaean taxonomy is wrong.

Linnaean classification do not use all apomorphies to define a group as suggested by the text, it uses a key subset in order to be able to file away new species (with their own unique traits) as they are discovered. If any of the two systems fails to identify Archaeopteryx as a (primitive) bird, it's the cladistic one, when insisting on a crown-based definition.

There are a lot of interesting and key differences between cladistic an Linnaean taxonomy, but this is not a good example. If you want an example where cladistics have proven superior to Linnaean taxonomy in understanding a group, I would suggest Lobopodia. The choice of apomorhies used in classical taxonomy has stood in the way of understanding this group, it's an example of where cladistics has really shone. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a rewriting of the section:

For example, the famous fossil organism Archaeopteryx has a lot of bird-like characteristics, but is not a member of any modern group of birds. It is, in effect, a 'great-aunt' of the group that contains all modern birds and their shared ancestors. Under Linnaean classification, Archaeopteryx was duly included in the class Aves by based on ”where the authorityes (in this case Owen and Huxley) felt it belonged". Implicitely, the requirement for belonging to Aves was altered, to account for Archaeopteryx' reptilian teeth, claws and long tail, a basically unscientific process. In contrast, the cladistic process makes for a more precise description: First, modern birds are defined as their last common ancestor and all its decendants (exluding ’’Archaeopteryx’’) and named, then a wider group can be defined, consisting of the last common ancestor of ’’Archaeopteryx’’ and modern birds. This process can be repeated with other exinct groups (like ’’Ichtyornis’’ and ’’Hesperornis’’), making for a plephora of names, all with their exact and unchangeable content and accosiated apomorphies. This multitude of names allows for a very precise discussion. The two systems reflect their different aims: Linnaean taxonmy gives a system with few names and easy oveview, cladistics makes for a very precise taxonomy with multiple names, each with definitions that can be reviewed scientifically.

Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

References on Archaeopteryx as a bird under Linnaean classification:

• Owen, R. (1863): On the Archaeopteryx of Von Meyer, with a description of the fossil remains of a long-tailed species from the lithographic stone of Solnhofen. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London no 153: pp 33-47. (original description of the whole animal, von Meyers fossil was a single feather)

• Romer, A.S. (1949): The Vertebrate Body. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. (2nd ed. 1955; 3rd ed. 1962; 4th ed. 1970) (general reference book for much of the 20th century)

• Milton Hildebrand; G. E. Goslow, Jr. Pprincipal ill. Viola Hildebrand. (2001): Analysis of vertebrate structure. New York: Wiley. p. 429. ISBN 0471295051. (modern analogue to Romer)

I can find more references if you need them. In general zoology and functional anatomy, where Linnaean nomenclature is in use, Archaeopteryx is near universally classed with the Aves. Actually, I haven't found a single source for the opposite.

There are more problems with the section:

It states that Archaeopteryx is not a "bird in the modern sense". This is not precise terminology. I guess it means it's not a "bird in the crown group", but the wording indicate that Archaeopteryx can not be a bird in the way the word "bird" is used in the modern sense. "Bird" is a vernacular term, and making sweeping statements of what goes under "bird" for the common man is risky. I suggest either using the term “crown group”, or the one I used (not a member of any modern bird group) to avoid technical terminology.

It goes on to present the assigning of Archaeopteryx to Aves as something done only with the greatest of difficulties. It was not, Archaeopteryx was immediately placed in Aves (jubilantly by Huxley and Darwin, more grudgedly by Owen) without much doubt. Also, the description given about the process (“where does Aves stop”) is actually a description of the cladistic method (increasingly more inclusive clades), not the Linnaean one.

The next section goes on to tell how Linnaean nomenclature can't be used to name stem groups. This is again just plainly wrong. Naming stemgroups will only be a problem as long as one assumes that names only goes for crown groups. Again, this is a notion that has been forwarded by cladistics, it has never been part of the Linnaean system. In Linnaean systems stem groups are classed under the nearest convenient highet taxon, that's how Pelycosaurs and Therapsids ended up in Reptilia under Owen and Romer (again showing the basic difference between the two systems). Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If stem groups are classed in the nearest higher taxon, then how does Linnean taxonomy differ from the cladistic approach? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, let me say that Linnaean systematics sensu lato has a long shistory, it's methodology has changed quite a bit from Linnaeus' time. I assume we here are referring to typical non-cladistic taxonomy of the last 50 years or so.

The difference between cladistics and Linnaean systematics when it comes to clades isn't all that great. 95% or more of Linnaean units are perfectly acceptable clades. When only extant species are considered, there are often no differences between the two at all. The greatest difference is in methodology of defining clades, and in that Linnaean systematics will accept a few grades to get nice and easily recognised units (e.g. Reptilia). Notice also that some cladistic units are aphomorphy- or stem-based, these will have some of the traits of Linnaean units. The basic differences are:

• Cladisics mostly define clades from nodes, Linnaean systematis from traits (notice that traits aren't necessarily the same as apomorphies). Thus the fossil limit of a Linnaean taxon may be a bit fussy, those of a node-based cladistic unit are sharply defined.
• The list of traits associated with a Linnaean taxon is not exhaustive, and may be subject to change, traits of a cladistic taxon are defines as all traits uniting the clade. The Linnaean units do not lend themselves well to multiple-traits computer analysis like that offered by PAUP, while cladistic clades are specifically defined to do so.
• The definition of a Linnaean unit is based on consensus and partly reflects history, the definition of a cladistic unit (when node-based) is absolute, and not subject to discussion (while the actual species or specimen content of the node may be).
• Linnaean systematics seek to define a low number of easily recognisable units, assigned to a hierarchical system (genii, families etc), while cladistics can define units to their hearts content without bothering with formal units. The result is that cladistics create a large number of exactly defined units, giving a very exact tool for discussing phylogeny, Linnaean systematics gives a low number of units (not always defined rigorously) offering excellent overview.

I hope that helps. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that in Linnean taxonomy, you simply re-write the definition of a group when you find a problematic fossil, thus rendering the previous definition of the group obsolete? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less... You will have to get the majority of other scientists to agree to your new definition though. As I wrote, definitions are largely a matter of consensus, today formalized through various Nomenclature Codes and associated committees. When Owen and Huxley implicitly re-defined what a bird is, there where no such committees or rules, and no-one felt the need to argue, the two being the leading anatomists of their day. Often you'll find slightly different uses of a taxon, denoted by citing the relevant author (e.g. Aves, sensu Owen 1863, as opposed to Aves, sensu Gauthier 2001), reflecting divided opinions.

Also worth remembering is that the Linnaean system has identified most of the "easy" units. When confronted with really difficult fossils, it sometimes come up shorthanded. There is where cladistics really shine (see Lobopodia). Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the point I'm trying (not very successfully!) to make. We are going to keep on discovering problematic fossils which require Linnean taxa to be expanded yet further, until they all merge into one another. While Linnean taxonomy works reasonably well for modern taxa, it was never intended to work backwards in geological time. A taxon with no fixed definition (i.e. Linnean taxa) is of limited use, because a 1940s paper and a 2009 paper will use the same term to mean something completely different. There are a number of time-proof ways to define a clade; none is entirely satisfactory, but at least they are unambiguous. So the question now is: how can the article communicate this point more easily?

In response to your point below, I should mention that I am not attempting to 'debunk' Linnean taxonomy; rather to illustrate the situations where it differs from the cladistic approach. At first blush the two systems look somewhat similar, and only by examining the areas where they aren't (which are the areas which the Linnean system fails) can one communicate how they differ. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly buggered up

I have read through this article several times, trying to make heads and tails of it. This is a very important article of a central concept in systematics, and central to cladistics. Still, the article uses almost half of its space denouncing Linnaean systematics (most of it based on misunderstandings of how it works) in stead of explaining the concept of clade. I suggest restructuring and rewriting the whole of it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's lots of room for improvement. It would help if there was a generally-respected recent book on cladistic thinking that included some patient explanations of the basics. If you read Hennig's original book and the early papers it creates a cloud of uncertainty about what the cladists actually believe which is hard to dissipate. It seems to me the the cladists lacked a synthesizer like Ernst Mayr who could give nice crisp summaries and memorable generalizations. I'm thinking that an article like Phylocode might be easier to make progress on. It uses cladistic ideas, but the phylocode is forced by the nature of the task to be very specific about what is proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a definition of a clade is simple: It's an individual, and all of its descendants. But this one-line definition doesn't make for an enthralling article. I've attempted to clarify the significance of the cladistic approach by contrasting it with the Linnean approach, and clearly not done a very good job.

For me, the key concept this article needs to address is why one would use a cladistic approach over a rank-based taxonomy. Rank-based taxonomy is touched upon at Biological_classification and Linnean taxonomy, but not covered too clearly - perhaps this is something you guys could improve, so you could point me to WP articles to correct the mistakes of understanding I am introducing!

As far as I am aware (speaking as a palaeontologist) the point at which the two systems differ is in how they handle fossils. My sense is that the Linnean system doesn't - leading to the confusion of Gould's Wonderful Life - whereas the cladistic system can handle them in an informative system, which is why a phylogenetic approach is taken in all modern papers pertaining to Cambrian 'oddballs', with no higher-level Linnean taxonomy being offered.

As you say, the question remains: how can we incorporate this into the article? One way of addressing this problem would be to lay out a structure encompassing the details we need to cover. I'd find it useful if one of you 'Linneanists' could draw something up from your perspective, so I appreciate what is important from your point of view. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, why one would use a cladistic approach over a rank-based taxonomy is a topic for the article on cladistics, not for this one. The reasons should be me mentioned in passim, but is hardly the main subject. My suggestion of topics for this article:

• Introduction (the present one is fine)
• Historical perspective, the present one is fine, could perhaps be expanded somewhat
• The types of clades (node, stem and apomorphy) with ample examples of each types and a bit on the features of each. Perhaps a bit of history (the general move from apomorphy-based to node-based clades)
• A bit about the strong points of cladistics (less about the weak points of trad. systematics).
• Some examples of complicated relationships solved through the use of clades (i think the Cambrian fauna you mention will be a good example).
• Some words on the opposition to a using a purely clade-based systematics

General critique of cladistics, PhyloCode or a phylogenetic classification per se belong under their respective articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's buggered up

I have been out of the taxonomy racket for over 20 years, and I recognize every line of this argument. Weirdly enough, even Mats' Wittgenstein-like hairsplitting even makes perfect sense to me (and I tend to agree with a lot of what he is trying to convey). The situation exists because of externalities of everything presented here; it is profitable (in an economic sense, as well as the sense of advancing one's reputation and career) for the "new guard" to present a sensational conflict rather than attempting to reconcile new paradigms with existing ones. Cladists will always insist that their classification system is fundamentally better than other systems, because just as historians can't sell books by agreeing with previous authors' interpretation of historical events, biologists can't get research grants without attracting attention and publicity. Thus, scientists active in taxonomy are obstreperous. Cladism is a valid way of looking at data (essentially, it's Aristotle's system rehashed and updated) but it's not an opposing force to linnean systematics. The conflict is artificially created and will not die until some new shibboleth replaces it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point! Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)