Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

Yes, it is the key-lock scheme that I had in mind when I wrote about the uniqueness of the genitals. So I was taught at the department, but apparently a lot of time has passed since then . Thank you for enlightening me.

Both the concept of "key and lock" and much of its criticism were expressed long before you were born. See, for example, Mayr's book Zoological Species and Evolution, translated in 1968.

I don't agree about genes. As far as I understand, and I was taught so long and hard, that it is the genetic code that determines morphological structures (in other words, the genotype determines the phenotype), and if it is currently considered otherwise, I will be glad to hear your comments

In theory, everything is true, but " dry theory, my friend, and the tree of life is forever green." You yourself write about the attributes: "available to the researcher". Indeed, the technical basis for studying genetic traits is not available to every researcher. And if you think about other people, non-specialists? For example, what should the determinant look like for species that are selected based on differences in genes? But that's fine; if the species are real, they should be singled out. But the primacy of genetic traits in taxonomy is still very far away due to imperfect methods. This is still the field of science fiction. First of all, no one (with rare exceptions) studies the entire genome of a particular species - this is very difficult, but they are limited to only a small part of it. That is, researchers deal with only a very small part of the characters in both purely "morphological" and "genetic taxonomy", so the differences are here they are small. The surprising thing is: why should differences in the sequence of nucleotides be concentrated in the region of DNA that is easiest to isolate or that is traditionally used in such studies? There are many arguments against the molecular clock hypothesis. Further, modern methods allow us to estimate only the level of genetic similarity between species by a separate (small) sequence, but they are not suitable for constructing a supergeneric classification.

And the genitals are looked at when there are not enough more accessible signs. When genitals don't work, you need to look for new taxonomic features: in anatomy, karyology, etc.

Both the concept of "key and lock" and much of its criticism were expressed long before you were born. See, for example, Mayr's book Zoological Species and Evolution, translated in 1968.

I knew that this theory had been criticized, but the fact that it was completely rejected surprised me.

 
Further, modern methods allow us to estimate only the level of genetic similarity between species by a separate (small) sequence, but they are not suitable for constructing a supergeneric classification.

As far as I understand, there are only species in nature, but all other add-ons are designed to facilitate the search for a particular species in the system. I.e., they are artificial. Otherwise, I agree, as much of what you have said corresponds to my ideas as well.

I knew that this theory had been criticized, but the fact that it was completely rejected surprised me.

It was not abandoned. It works for some groups, but not for others.

As far as I understand, there are only species in nature, but all other add-ons are designed to facilitate the search for a particular species in the system. I.e., they are artificial. Otherwise, I agree, as much of what you have said is consistent with my ideas.

No way! Classification should be natural, i.e. it should be based on the historical development of a particular group. Of course, there are no taxonomic categories other than species in nature, in the sense that the boundaries between taxa are always conditional, but even here we must strive for maximum naturalness, that is, mono - or even holophilicity of the selected taxa.

It was not abandoned. It works for some groups, but not for others.

Maybe we misunderstood each other, but apparently we're talking about the same things.

No way! Classification should be natural, i.e. it should be based on the historical development of a particular group.

You probably know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure . From my point of view, the taxonomy cannot be natural in principle, since it is extremely difficult to reflect the historical development of the group. At least based on the fact that the lack of paleontological findings does not give a complete picture of the phylogenetic relationships between species. If we talk about cladistics, then there are many pros and cons. And to speak about the naturalness of such a system is also unlikely.

Of course, there are no taxonomic categories other than species in nature, in the sense that the boundaries between taxa are always conditional, but even here we must strive for maximum naturalness

I can't agree. In nature, there are species, or rather populations. And it is not entirely correct to say that there is a "taxonomic category" in nature. A taxonomic category is a level of a hierarchical system created by humans, and it cannot really exist .
As I understand it, you are talking about phylogenetic taxonomy, but as far as I know, this is more an aspiration than an obvious reality.

From my point of view, the taxonomy cannot be natural in principle, since it is extremely difficult to reflect the historical development of the group. At least based on the fact that the lack of paleontological findings does not give a complete picture of the phylogenetic relationships between species. If we talk about cladistics, then there are many pros and cons. And to speak about the naturalness of such a system is also unlikely.
In nature, there are species, or rather populations. And it is not entirely correct to say that there is a "taxonomic category" in nature. A taxonomic category is a level of a hierarchical system created by humans, and it cannot really exist .
As I understand it, you are talking about phylogenetic taxonomy, but as far as I know, this is more an aspiration than an obvious reality.

A taxonomic category is a class of objects (taxa) of the same rank. Of course, there are no taxonomic categories or taxa in nature, except for species that are naturally distinct groups of populations. So, in reality, there are species that are related to each other by kinship, and have properties that reflect these relationships. These properties can usually be used to reconstruct relationships between species, i.e., the historical development of a group even in the absence of paleontological material. Modern phylogenetics has good tools for this purpose. Of course, any such reconstruction will be hypothetical, since phylogeny is not given to us for direct contemplation, but a well-founded, consistent, refutable phylogenetic hypothesis guarantees the naturalness of the classification based on it. Poorly founded hypotheses are discarded or changed, clarified, and the classification is constantly striving for the ideal of naturalness.

I don't see any contradictions in our views .

I don't see any contradictions in our views .

I thought you thought the system couldn't be natural in principle

I said that taxonomy is not natural at the present time and probably will never be so .

as it is extremely difficult to reflect the historical development of the group. At least on the basis of the fact that the lack of paleontological finds does not give a complete picture.

Then I clarified my position

As I understand it, you are talking about phylogenetic taxonomy, but as far as I know, this is more an aspiration than an obvious reality.

Thus, I did not say that it is not necessary to strive for such a taxonomy, but I said that this aspiration is infinite. It's like a war with windmills if you will.

You write

Of course, any such reconstruction will be hypothetical, since the phylogeny is not given to us for direct contemplation

Which also confirms my position

Further

Poorly founded hypotheses are discarded or changed, clarified, and the classification is constantly striving for the ideal of naturalness.

And this confirms my position on "windmills". After all, outdated hypotheses are poorly justified. Let us recall the stages of the development of naki - there is a crisis of science, the beginning of the formation of a new paradigm, a new paradigm, and again a crisis. This process is cyclical. However, no one forbids you to entertain the illusion that perhaps your classification is closer to the IDEAL . You see, there are no contradictions.

And also, to the question of taxa and taconomic categories. It seemed to me that our views here diverged somewhat.

I wrote

A taxonomic category is a level of a hierarchical system invented by a human being, and it cannot really exist

What corresponds to reality based on the definition of a taxon and taxonomic category: "A taxon is a group of organisms that are related to one or another degree of kinship and are sufficiently isolated to be assigned a certain taxonomic category of a particular rank - species, genus, family, etc. Unlike a taxonomic category, a taxon always implies specific biological objects."

Your position

A taxonomic category is a class of objects (taxa) of the same rank.

And this is true, but the following phrase is not entirely clear

Of course, there are no taxonomic categories or taxa in nature, except for species that are naturally distinct groups of populations.

If a taxon " always implies specific biological objects."so they exist. I take it?"

This post was edited by Dormidont - 05/04/2008 11: 59

I said that taxonomy is not natural at the present time and probably will never be so .

It seemed to me that your position is close to idealism, which believes that the whole world is unknowable in principle. A rare position now, but interesting, but replacing "in principle" with "probably" would explain everything, if not for the "endless pursuit". You can endlessly strive for an ideal that is constantly moving away from you. We are not in the Looking Glass after all. And a change in the scientific hypothesis is not a change in the scientific paradigm, Kuhn's scientific revolutions have nothing to do with it. If we consider the whole system of living organisms, it is, of course, unnatural, but there are elements of naturalness in it and they are becoming more and more numerous. For example, despite the temptation of global generalizations, I believe that it is unlikely that the division of insects into cryptojawed and open-jawed ones will ever change, the latter-into triplur and winged ones. Phylogenetic hypotheses about the latter are not yet well established, but the taxa Polyneoptera, Paraneoptera, and Holometabola are unlikely to be disbanded.
Taxa? of course, apart from species, they don't exist in nature. There is only a continuous phylogeny and species from its various sites living in the modern world. The boundaries of these taxa are drawn conditionally due to certain key features and certain rules that differ in different taxonomic schools.

Apparently our positions are still different

It seemed to me that your position is close to idealism, which believes that the whole world is unknowable in principle.

What is knowledge of the world? This is just our idea of it at this point in time and nothing more. The world will change and our ideas about it will change. Pliny didn't think that flies were born in rotting meat because he was stupid or didn't understand anything in life (6), but because he saw things differently-from a mythological point of view, in which this fact was obvious.

And a change in the scientific hypothesis is not a change in the scientific paradigm, Kuhn's scientific revolutions have nothing to do with it.

Yes, well, it has nothing to do with it!!! Do they apply to the whole of science, including taxonomy, or have you set aside a special place for it?

I believe that it is unlikely that the division of insects into cryptojawed and open-jawed insects will ever change, while the latter will be divided into triplur and winged insects. Phylogenetic hypotheses about the latter are not yet well established, but the taxa Polyneoptera, Paraneoptera, and Holometabola are unlikely to be disbanded.

I will give you another example: relatively recent studies of ribosomal RNA have already shown the "flaws" of modern taxonomy (although mainly on prokaryotes), and these are just speculations. With the development of technology and a change in the human worldview, the taxonomy will also change. Yes, what to say! If we recall the times of John Ray, when the name of the nascomys consisted of 20 words, in which the description of the species was laid down, and compare today's taxonomy. Already goosebumps, from the obvious contrasts! And it's only been 300 years!!! At the same time, keep in mind the pace of development of today's science, and it will become obvious to you that even in your lifetime, taxonomy is waiting for huge changes. And here it is not that the division into hidden-jawed and post-jawed ones will change, but the whole biological science may change completely.

Taxa? of course, apart from species, they don't exist in nature. There is only a continuous phylogeny and species from its various sites living in the modern world.

Yeah, taxa don't exist in their pure form. Well, that's fair enough.

Apparently our positions are still different

What kind of taxa do they exist in? What is a "clean view"? if these are abstractions of the human mind, then they do exist there. So how has the world changed since Pliny's time? Have the flies stopped starting in rotting meat? By the way, Pliny was just a compiler, and Aristotle, who lived long before him, made amazing discoveries for his time, when he could look at or check certain things himself. What exactly are the "flaws" of modern taxonomy shown by rRNA studies? Combine roundworms with arthropods? And the taxonomy of prokaryotes on what other characters to build, in addition to molecular? When it comes to predicting the future, it is always from the evil one, and it is always tempting to generalize: look, this is how science has changed since the days of the Holy Inquisition. However, despite scientific revolutions, Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics have not been canceled (unlike many hypotheses): each new paradigm takes on the old one. And with regard to phylogenetic hypotheses, everything is not so simple. 200 years ago, the great Latreille proposed a classification of arthropods, which was not accepted and which they are coming to only now, and you say today's science. Finally, two funny pictures: the first one shows the year 2000 as it was presented in 1882, and the second one is the same, but in the views of 1979.

Pictures:

robida_1882_full_paleo_future.jpg — (395.87к)


a079228348a06d4ff8561110.L.jpg — (84.95к)

So how has the world changed since Pliny's time? Have the flies stopped starting in rotting meat?

It is not the world that has changed, but our perception of it and our worldview. That's all. And I would not belittle Pliny. Aristotle indicated 8 legs for a fly, and this was an indisputable fact until the Middle Ages!

What exactly are the "flaws" of modern taxonomy shown by rRNA studies? Combine roundworms with arthropods?

Here is a quote on the topic " Achievements of new phylogenetics... they are indisputable. Significant changes were made to the picture of the historical development of eucaryotic organisms: it turned out that many groups that were previously considered phylogenetically unified are actually "combined" — they come from different roots. Obviously, this changes the understanding of the mechanisms of evolution: the new results rather confirm the classical ideas about the wide manifestation of regularities and parallelisms in the biological world, rather than evidence in favor of the stochastic, random nature of evolution."

each new paradigm takes on the old one.

Each new paradigm is a step for the next one, the old one can be rejected or significantly changed.

Finally, two funny pictures

Don't confuse billitristics with evidence. The end of the 19th century is the pinnacle of technocratic thinking and this is reflected in your picture. In 1979, technocratic thinking was slightly modernized, atomic energy, space travel appeared, and this can also be seen in the figure. But, the technocratic era has come to an end, another couple of disasters and no one will think down about the environment. And I am sure that this will be reflected in the vision of the world and in the drawings and pictures. Any human activity, including scientific activity, is a product of an epoch, and epochs have the unpleasant feature of changing. And what this change will be, evolutionary or revolutionary, we can't guess.

I have such a question, someone will tell me how to prepare the genitals of Holotrichia. If possible, in detail, I have never been involved in such a "dirty" case

But it all started with this purely practical question! From the methods of preparing genitals, we came to forecasts about the development of taxonomy! Well, just like in that joke (I won't give it in full, probably many people know and will remember), when a man went to a hypermarket at the request of his wife to buy her (sorry ) pads on the occasion of her monthly period, and under the influence of an eloquent sales consultant left the store in a brand-new jeep loaded with fishing accessories (they say, there's nothing to do at home for a few days anyway ).
What I mean is, maybe we shouldn't go so far away from the original topic. However, he is a sinner .

It is not the world that has changed, but our perception of it and our worldview. That's all. And I would not belittle Pliny. Aristotle indicated 8 legs for a fly, and this was an indisputable fact until the Middle Ages!

The only person who can't be belittled is Aristotle. I do not know a more brilliant person who has ever studied wildlife. That a Hellenic, and one like Aristotle at that, should miscalculate-that cannot be. Most likely, he was writing about a nymphalid butterfly. But his works have come down to us only thanks to Arabic translations. So the Arabs probably translated " fly "instead of "butterfly". They translated a lot of things from Aristotle in this way.

Here's a quote on the subject

If this quote works against you, it shows that the system is gradually becoming more natural. Or do you mean to say that Pavlinov talked about studying rRNA?

And what this change will be, evolutionary or revolutionary, we can't guess.

So I am saying the same thing: arguments about what grandiose changes are coming in the near future are absurd, since they are based on simple extrapolation and analogies, and not on an analysis of the deep essence of development processes. Of the arguments of the last class, I know only the works of Toffler, the rest is idle talk.

Dear Tentator and Dormidont, Honestly, your erudition and breadth of knowledge are impressive. But still, don't forget about the topic name. If you want to talk about the history of science and the prospects for its development, create a new topic, name it accordingly and communicate on health - only those who want to participate in this discussion will come to your "light". And so, when people see that such respected participants have decided to share their practical experience on the topic "Genital dissection-methods, etc.", they rush to read your advice, but they find themselves in a completely different conversation. Well, you must agree, do not get so carried away!

Most likely, he was writing about a nymphalid butterfly.

Are you really saying that a butterfly has 8 limbs? If Aristotle confused anything, it was a fly with a spider .

If this quote works against you, it shows that the system is gradually becoming more natural. Or do you mean to say that Pavlinov talked about studying rRNA?

Pavlinov spoke about all the new data, including those obtained by studying r-RNA. I don't see anything anti-root. On the contrary, he says that the data obtained in recent years show "that many groups that were previously considered phylogenetically unified are in fact 'combined' — they come from different roots." What does this mean? In my opinion, the fact that the ideas about the system of organisms are changing, the old schemes are being destroyed. New ones are created on their fragments. However, I would not say that the system becomes more natural, it becomes different, viewed from a different angle and nothing more. Here is the full link to the job http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/doc/phyl-biol.htm

So I am saying the same thing: arguments about what grandiose changes are coming in the near future are absurd, since they are based on simple extrapolation and analogies, and not on an analysis of the deep essence of development processes. Of the arguments of the last class, I know only the works of Toffler, the rest is idle talk.

yes, this is not a rewarding activity. However, the fact that science is a product of the civilization that parodied it is indisputable and you can't call it idle talk

This post was edited by Dormidont-05/04/2008 22: 10

The topic was better called "Philosophy and methodology of taxonomy". Or even better, the metaphysics of taxonomy

Are you really saying that a butterfly has 8 limbs? If Aristotle confused anything, it was a fly with a spider .

8 legs?! No, this is already a story, apparently the real story about 4 legs was so broken in folklor.

However, I would not say that the system becomes more natural, it becomes different, viewed from a different angle and nothing more.

No! First of all, phylogenies are correctly reconstructed. A striking example of what Igor Yakovlevich is talking about is reptiles, which, as was shown recently, come from two different roots of amphibians, which in turn are also apparently polyphyletic. Polyphelitic taxa are by definition unnatural, and their disbanding leads to the creation of a more natural system.

yes, this is not a rewarding activity. However, the fact that science is a product of the civilization that parodied it is indisputable and you can't call it idle talk

How does it follow that "the division into hidden-jawed and open-jawed ones will change" and "in general, the whole biological science may change in the bud"?

The topic was better called "Philosophy and methodology of taxonomy". Or even better, the metaphysics of taxonomy

You seem to be praising this little dialogue a little too much. I would call it more simply "how Tentator and Dormidont told about the science of taxonomy", although it is not long. As short as possible - a Dormidontentator's story. Even though it's long. It can be even shorter - Dormitentorosis or Tentodormitosis. But I'm afraid it sounds more like a diagnosis than a topic title .

8 legs?! No, this is already a story, apparently the real story about 4 legs was so broken in folklor.

8, 4, what's the difference? The main thing is that it's not six. If he miscalculated or was transferred incorrectly, this is a second-rate question. But why no one disputed this fact. After all, a fly is not a rare insect, and in ancient times they were generally more numerous, since living conditions contributed to development.

No! First of all, phylogenies are correctly reconstructed.

Yes, I do not deny the desire of taxonomy to naturalness. I am saying that it is impossible or extremely difficult to achieve this, and not at this stage of development of civilization. You yourself say that " if we consider the whole system of living organisms, it is, of course, unnatural." How can one be sure that annelids are the ancestors of insects without facts, without paleontological material? How can you seriously believe that dinosaurs learned to fly by bouncing after prey, or that Archiopteryx is a direct ancestor of modern birds? These are inferences and nothing more. The theory of evolution itself has many white spots. Read Nazarov's book "The Doctrine of Macroevolution on the path to a new synthesis", where many of these issues are addressed.

How does it follow that "the division into hidden-jawed and open-jawed ones will change" and "in general, the whole biological science may change in the bud"?

No, I'm not saying that this division will change. Let's fantasize. Imagine that the division of say a group of insects is true only from one position. All these insects were united on the basis of one characteristic feature -the presence of some kind of outgrowth. And yet, who said that this sign proves their relationship? Probably, when disassembling their code, it turns out that this is not the case, and this sign generally has a purely adaptive meaning.

No, "metaphysics" is the right word here.

If he miscalculated or was transferred incorrectly, this is a second-rate question.

This is not a minor issue for me. Another thing is that it does not apply to the topic at all. Why they didn't challenge it is also quite obvious.

How can you seriously believe that dinosaurs learned to fly by bouncing after prey, or that Archiopteryx is a direct ancestor of modern birds? These are inferences and nothing more. The theory of evolution itself has many white spots. Read Nazarov's book "The Doctrine of Macroevolution on the path to a new synthesis", where many of these issues are addressed.

The whole system is unnatural, but some individual classifications are quite natural. And how can we be sure of the existence of electrons and other elementary particles? And what does it mean without facts? Phylogeny does not pass without a trace, ancestral traits are inherited by descendants, and the phylogeny is reconstructed using synapomorphy and external group methods. These are textbook truths, just like the one that Archiopteryx is not the ancestor of birds. Nazarov is the one who "Evolution is not according to Darwin"? No, please excuse me from reading this.

No, I'm not saying that this division will change. Let's fantasize. Imagine that the division of say a group of insects is true only from one position. All these insects were united on the basis of one characteristic feature -the presence of some kind of outgrowth. And yet, who said that this sign proves their relationship? Probably, when disassembling their code, it turns out that this is not the case, and this sign generally has a purely adaptive meaning.

No one said that this trait proves their relationship, if it is not their synapomorphy. And what if bacterial traits can't prove that taxa are related?

You seem to be praising this little dialogue a little too much. I would call it more simply "how Tentator and Dormidont told about the science of taxonomy", although it is not long. As short as possible - a Dormidontentator's story. Even though it's long. It can be even shorter - Dormitentorosis or Tentodormitosis. But I'm afraid it sounds more like a diagnosis than a topic title .

Dormidont, +1!

This is not a minor issue for me. Another thing is that it does not apply to the topic at all.

Well, how does it not apply! I gave you an example from antiquity to show the complexity of the scientific process. We have long been taught that the world evolves evolutionarily. Aristotle was an important and famous man in history, the founder of many laws and discoveries. But Aristotle has only just begun to understand the world, according to our historians of biology, and now, after thousands of years, our scientists following in his footsteps seem to have reached scientific heights, sky-high heights, so to speak. This continuity has been strongly emphasized in the scientific literature. Each textbook provided a historical summary! And yet there is no such continuity. This is all fiction. And it never was. There were just different views on the world, and different civilizations that had their own vision of the world around them. It is quite possible that you and I, from the point of view of the Hellenes, are in the same deep and dark ignorance as from our point of view the Hellenes were primitive. Oh, yes, we always make a reservation, they were at a "high stage of development for their time". And the fact that the ancient authors give such, from our point of view, erroneous information suggests that they saw the world differently, and did not attach much importance to accurate facts. However, they paid much more attention to spiritual development, which our society, alas, lacks. More recently, they smashed up churches and said that religion is opium for the people, and look not at today's Russia. And this cannot but affect science as a product of civilization.

The whole system is unnatural, but some individual classifications are quite natural.

When I encounter such rhetoric, I always ask my opponent why the amoeba is considered a primitive organism. How primitive is it, if it has outlived many organisms in its current form? On the contrary, its structure is perfect, and I am sure that if all of humanity dies, the amoebas will continue to live and reproduce without experiencing any discomfort. And what does "natural"mean? This is how you think this "naturalness" will look the same from your point of view, and say from the point of view of the bug you are studying? I don't think so. You even see differently, and therefore perceive the world differently. And the truth is that the world doesn't have a single true denominator. Remember Solomon , and you are right, and you are right, " he said to the two disputants. In other words, I do not think that a person is so perfect that he is able to realize all the complexity, diversity and uniqueness of the existing world. It's more like an old Indian legend, about three blind men who have been blind since childhood, and their dream was to get to know an Elephant. And so they gathered around this animal, and each went to a certain part of the body - one touches the tail, the second touches the leg, and the third touches its side. They touched this elephant and began to share their impressions. But as you can see, they couldn't reach a consensus . Everyone argued until they were hoarse about the true Elephant, and everyone was right in their own way. Here you are a Tentator, looking at a grain of sand, and on it you try to realize the splendor of a deserted sandy beach at sunset .

Archiopteryx is not an ancestor of birds.

For a very long time, the opposite point of view was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren. And now it is strong. Here is your textbook truth

Nazarov is the one who "Evolution is not according to Darwin"? No, please excuse me from reading this.

I posted it on the scans and it's not the same Nazarov.

No one said that this trait proves their relationship, if it is not their synapomorphy. And what if bacterial traits can't prove that taxa are related?

As far as I understand, taxonomy uses variable features, i.e. those features that are best diagnosed by the researcher and have stable differences (although you said that any working features are used). In webs, this is more often the venation or structure of the propodeum or other structures, such as the pronotum. So, we can say that all species that have a short pronotum belong to the same genus (roughly according to one trait, of course), or we can say that they simply have a short pronotum and do not conduct any phylogenetic speculations, since the trait that appears in the phenotype is only the tip of the iceberg of the genotype, and what is inside, it is extremely difficult to understand, especially without having a collection of material for several millennia, at least. I was surprised when another textbook truth - one gene, one trait-was called into question, and it turned out that genes have a much more complex structure than previously thought. And it is not so easy to influence the signs.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 05.05.2008 22: 36

That's Nazarov, that's the one. Here is Severtsov's article about his book: http://gilgamesh-lugal.livejournal.com/16615.html.

Dormidont, the topics you bring up are getting more and more extensive and more and more metaphysical, and they require extensive answers. I'm very busy right now and I can't pay enough attention to this conversation.

[quote=Juglans,06.05.2008 08:28]

bora

There is no need to distort typological systems. All major families of plants and diurnal butterflies were established before evolutionary methods were widely used. Linnaeus, who denied evolution, did not think of combining a rooster with a man - for some reason, he combined man with apes into a group of primates. Why would that be? And why did the Jussier family system suddenly turn out to be quite natural, even though he had no idea of any evolution?

About the types. If the view is real, then it must be real to all living things. If in a certain group we encounter blurred boundaries of the view, then it means that we can not make generalizations, such as phrases that "only the view is real", because universal criteria no longer work.

That is, in fact, the classification, as research methods improve, self-organizes into a phylogenetic tree, no matter how opposed the author-a supporter of divine creation, if he still unconsciously relies on objective criteria for himself. That's what I needed to prove. If you use far-fetched criteria, then this will not be a classification, but verbiage.
And about the species: there are already historically established species with absolutely clear boundaries. And there are those that evolve even in the postglacial period, and here the concept of an extra-taxonomic semi-species would be useful. Here, the boundaries are still shaky, and it would probably be correct to consider the entire group of semi-species as one species with a wide reaction rate and a wide range. In another 10 years, they will be completely separate species, and now they are genetically more or less slightly different populations with some morphological features. However, unfortunately, they have already been unreasonably described as independent species and we have to puzzle over where the species boundary is. And it turned out to be a substitution of concepts. Based on the literature and my own data, I can only say that there are significantly fewer insect species than described above.

bora
Typological classification is just the initial "state of the classifier". We classify objects and concepts according to the same principle. The fact that the group identified by the typologist turns out to be monophyletic is not a systematic approximation, but only demonstrates the connection between typological and evolutionary approaches. Darwin, for example, did not apply his own ideas at all to the systematics of Thoracica, for which he was a great specialist. But, after all, it's not even about that! In the framework of evolutionary theory, there is NO ban on paraphyletic groups, monophyly is understood broadly, and the "ancestor-descendant" relationship is allowed. On the contrary, the cladistic doctrine (named Tentator wrote about it) has limitations that cannot be considered proven from the point of view of evolutionary theory – this is only an a priori convention. The division of all living things into prokaryotes and eukaryotes is quite natural, since it reflects two important stages of evolution. But from the point of view of cladists, prokaryotes are a paraphyletic (i.e., not a natural group).

You're wrong about the types. The same coniferous species have existed for a very long time. And subspecies of some shields are several tens of millions of years old. Interspecific hybrids in plants are the norm, not the exception. The creators of STE worked with animals, so they did not take into account botanists and mycologists, and even more so with microbiologists and protistologists. Who can say that the causative agents of pseudotuberculosis and plague are one species or two? Genetically-one, and phenotypically-two. And what to do about it? Do you call for a systematic move towards phylogenetic systems? Good! Then stick to the phylogenetic, not biological, concept of the species! And within the framework of this concept, try to prove the subspecific or semi-specific rank of " bad " species. And you will again "wallow" in conventions. A lot of genetic and morphological work has been done, but the question of the number of common mussel species remains unresolved. It may be different for insects, but they are not the "center of the universe", but only one of many classes of living beings.

So much has already been written about the fact that classification and phylogenetics are two different disciplines, and the classification may not reflect kinship. In geology, there are two types of rock classifications - evolutionary and structure-based. The second one is used most often.

And how much has been written about scientific communism! Yes, phylogenetics is not the same as taxonomy, but it must be based on it, otherwise you will get a lot of different typological classifications that do not have universal scientific value. Ah, well, if it is used in geology, then yes! Forest entomology also uses an artificial classification of damage, and what should we also classify insects by type of damage?

There are no boundaries between a large number of species, especially among plants. When describing a new species of bedbugs, we do not attempt to establish its reproductive isolation from similar species, but only hide behind a biological concept, using only morphology. On the other hand, please indicate to me the convention of type or class boundaries. All animal types and classes have very non-verbose boundaries.

So much between the majority? I do not know what you are hiding behind, but taxonomists describing a new species, judge reproductive isolation by hiatus. Types and classes are isolated from each other by the apparent boundaries of extinct taxa. There are no such boundaries on a real phylogenetic tree.

By whom, I wonder, was this "shown"? Yes, there were such hypotheses going back to Yarvik, but they were not supported. ALL modern amniotes are descended from a single ancestor. Yes, reptiles are paraphyletic, but it depends on what is considered reptiles.

Well, here's a quote from a book for school-age children by K. Eskova: "So, according to the most modern ideas (which, as often happens in science, can be considered a development of Huxley's views at a new level), in several (at least two) evolutionary lines of amphibians, the syndrome of reptilian characteristics was independently developed and the reptilian level of organization was reached. That is, “reptiles " is not a vertical category, but a horizontal one; it is not a taxon whose members are connected by a single origin, and grada is the level of organization that tetrapods achieve when they lose their obligate connection with water (Figure 39). The existence of two independent evolutionary branches of amniotes – theromorphic (from the Greek “therion” – beast) and sauromorphic (from "sauros" - lizard), which diverged at the level of amphibians and were crowned: the first – by mammals, and the second-by birds and dinosaurs, is now almost universally recognized" And a footnote to this paragraph: "Recently, m.Full nameIvakhnenko (1980) strongly argued that the third “anapsid” line of evolution also has independent amphibian roots; on this basis, he proposed to separate turtles, cotylosaurs, and related forms into a separate class – parareptiles. In addition, there are a number of arguments in favor of the fact that the amphibians standing at the base of the corresponding reptilian trunks are descended from different groups of brush-fins; if this hypothesis is confirmed, it turns out that theromorphs and sauromorphs diverged not even at the "amphibian “level, but also at the” fish" level!"

It's the same story with five-clumps: they have absolutely nothing in common with crustaceans, but they are crustaceans. Now molecular methods suggest that millipedes and insects do not form a monophyletic group, but the number of synapomorphies (and unique ones) in incomplete whiskers is quite large. Are they false?

If the five-clots didn't have anything to do with crustaceans, you wouldn't be claiming that they are crustaceans right now. How do molecular methods contradict ateloserate holophilia? And why is the sequence of a small piece of RNA a sign that can cross out a lot of reliable morphological features?

Linnaeus, who denied evolution, did not think of combining a rooster with a man - for some reason, he combined man with apes into a group of primates. Why would that be? And why did the Jussier family system suddenly turn out to be quite natural, even though he had no idea of any evolution?

If the view is real, then it must be real to all living things. If in a certain group we encounter blurred boundaries of the view, then it means that we can not make generalizations, such as phrases that "only the view is real", because universal criteria no longer work.

What do you mean you should? Wildlife is not a periodic table; it is likely that the principles of classifying animals are not suitable or not quite suitable for plants. In animal taxonomy, for example, there are not as many categories for the subspecies level as in botany.

What about Linnean Aptera and Neuroptera? Combining fleas, lice, spiders, scorpions, ticks, and crabs into one taxon will be worse than combining a human with a rooster) And it is better not to remember about its classification of plants.

In the framework of evolutionary theory, there is NO ban on paraphyletic groups, monophyly is understood broadly, and the "ancestor-descendant" relationship is allowed. On the contrary, the cladistic doctrine (named Tentator wrote about it) has limitations that cannot be considered proven from the point of view of evolutionary theory – this is only an a priori convention.

Nothing like that! I was talking about polyphyletic taxa, which are always disbanded within any taxonomic direction. And there are innumerable paraphyly - not all paraphyletic taxa are recognized even by serious traditionalists. A very well-known traditionalist taxonomist told me that" very " paraphyletic taxa should be disbanded. I do not know where the "very"-"not very" boundary passes, but apparently prokaryotes, protists, and Apterygota are "very" paraphyletic taxa, since probably there is not a single person who would recognize them as natural right now.

  
Dormidont, the topics you bring up are getting more and more extensive and more and more metaphysical each time,

As I understand it you yourself suggested naming the topic metaphysics of taxonomy

 
I'm very busy right now and I can't pay enough attention to this conversation.

You have enough time to respond to Juglans, so I conclude that you simply do not have an answer to the topics I touch upon. Special thanks to Juglans for introducing a scientific basis to this dialog, as my amateur level is apparently not able to meet the high criteria of the Tentator .

That's Nazarov, that's the one.

You know, the way Darwinists keep their brainchild is like prehistoric idolatry. This is no longer a science, but a fitting of facts to the existing theory of evolution. Or perhaps you think that it is worth renaming all the departments of genetics in the country again to the departments of Darwinism? And Nazarov is a good guy, he deserves respect. Knowing what a difficult path he was taking, he still had enough willpower to express his position. And Severtsov fulfilled the role of a scientific executioner intended for him. Oh, it was already all in our history, and not so long ago. As Solomon would say, " and it will pass."
Thank you for the information about the book, but I didn't have time to read it.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 06.05.2008 21: 07

I have a lot to say about this, but for now I want to focus on one example. So, it is argued that reptiles are polyphyletic (not paraphyletic). Another point of view is given about their paraphyletic nature. Both points of view are based on something*. Thus, we have here two phylogenetic hypotheses, and with an unclear "universal scientific value". This is a good illustration of the fact that a phylogenetic approach, no less "typological"**, is capable of generating "a lot of the most diverse ... classifications". I appeal to the advocates of phylogenetic taxonomy: please list the advantages of this approach.
= = =
* Although I did not find any confirmation of the first one, except for the quoted quote from nauchpop.
** I have, however, serious doubts that the participants in the conversation understand this word in the same way.

I offered to name it, but I don't want to do it and I don't have time for it. I don't understand why you're talking about the ancient Greeks. I don't want to criticize your original theories. If you don't care if Aristotle was wrong or mistranslated, because the fact of the error (absolutely incredible!) it fits into your concept of some kind of transcendental vision of the world by the ancient Greeks, well, please. However, it should be remembered that Aristotle, who somehow saw the world in his own way, described 500 species of animals, postoril the first classification, in general, lived to the 19th century, he described the development of drones from unfertilized eggs in bees, opened the mouth apparatus of sea urchins, the so-called Aristotelian lantern, established the heartbeat of a chicken embryo On the third day of development, I found a snail in the inner ear, found a rudimentary eye in a mole, and made a lot of amazing discoveries for his time. And you claim a lack of continuity? Yes, the whole European culture grows out of the ancient Greek, precisely from this, Aristotelian feature of the mind. It wouldn't have grown out of Chinese culture. Further, is it really necessary to explain that slobo "primitive" in evolutionary theory and taxonomy means "initial", "primary"? Even if we talk about the trivial meaning of this word, then, of course, sarcodaceae are organized more simply than, say, arthropods, but more complex than bacteria. This phrase - "you can say that they just have a short pronotum and do not make any phylogenetic speculations" - brings you back to the time of John Ray, which you recently described. "...Since the trait that appears in the phenotype is only the tip of the iceberg of the genotype, and it is extremely difficult to understand what is inside" - why do taxonomics need to judge the genotype? This is a completely different science. We need to build a system that is as perfect as possible, reflects natural patterns and has a predictive value. This is esli brief and closer to the essence of the discussion. And as for reading books, you will soon be taught theology in schools, then what kind of archaeopteryx and jumping dinosaurs with evolutionary taxonomy will be there!

I have a lot to say about this, but for now I want to focus on one example. So, it is argued that reptiles are polyphyletic (not paraphyletic). Another point of view is given about their paraphyletic nature. Both points of view are based on something*. Thus, we have here two phylogenetic hypotheses, and with an unclear "universal scientific value". This is a good illustration of the fact that a phylogenetic approach, no less "typological"**, is capable of generating "a lot of the most diverse ... classifications". I appeal to the advocates of phylogenetic taxonomy: please list the advantages of this approach.

Well, a polyphyletic taxon is not forbidden to be paraphyletic either. With reptiles, the history is such that they come from 2 or 3 roots and give two child taxa from themselves. The second point of view has never been disputed by anyone, so the two hypotheses you mentioned are not here. The advantages of phylogenetic classification are as follows. Since there is only one phylogeny, the number of classifications based on it in the presence of solid taxonomic rules is relatively small, and ideally there is only one. There are many examples where the phylogeny reconstructed on morphological features almost completely coincided with the molecular phylogeny - the differences consisted in minor deletions, the change of which was accepted by one or the other side. This is provided that the research is thorough and methodologically correct. The second advantage is a certain, but not absolute, predictive power: properties inherited from a common ancestor are manifested in almost all its descendants, so the position in the natural system can often predict the properties of objects that are genetically and morphologically close to each other. What are the advantages of typological classifications? And please explain exactly how to understand this word.

I don't understand why you're talking about the ancient Greeks. Yes, the whole European culture grows out of the ancient Greek, precisely from this, Aristotelian feature of the mind.

What do you mean by European culture? If I list to you those peoples and cultures that they carried taking place on the territory of Europe from antiquity to the present day-the forum will not be enough. And all these cultures were by no means isolated from each other, but on the contrary actively interacted, mixed, absorbed each other. And Greek is one of the few. I was not talking about some "transcendental vision of the world by the ancient Greeks", I was talking about the fact that it is very difficult for us modern people to understand ancient Greek culture, and all the discoveries that Aristotle made, he did within the framework of the civilization in which he was.

Further, is it really necessary to explain that slobo "primitive" in evolutionary theory and taxonomy means "initial", "primary"?

No, you don't have to, but still explain why such modern creatures as amoebas began to strive for multicellularity?

why is it necessary to judge the genotype in taxonomy? This is a completely different science.

Here we are, you wanted to create a natural system based on the relationship of organisms. So that everything was built as it happened in nature. And this implies knowledge of the genotype. The phenotypic features available to the entomologist show similarities and differences in the genotype of the species. Or am I wrong?

And as for reading books, you will soon be taught theology in schools, then what kind of archaeopteryx and jumping dinosaurs with evolutionary taxonomy will be there!

And I'll tell you the same thing, scientific thought is determined by the civilization that parodied it.

Dormidont, please spare me the trouble of retelling the contents of textbooks on cultural studies and general biology. What is taught in schools and sometimes even in universities is very far from modern "scientific thought". And there is only one reason for this. It is in a certain inferiority of our education system. And if a person does not study at Moscow State University or St. Petersburg State University, he has only one thing left - self-education.

You know, the way Darwinists keep their brainchild is like prehistoric idolatry. This is no longer a science, but a fitting of facts to the existing theory of evolution. Or perhaps you think that it is worth renaming all the departments of genetics in the country again to the departments of Darwinism? And Nazarov is a good guy, he deserves respect. Knowing what a difficult path he was taking, he still had enough willpower to express his position. And Severtsov fulfilled the role of a scientific executioner intended for him. Oh, it was already all in our history, and not so long ago. As Solomon would say, " and it will pass."
Thank you for the information about the book, but I didn't have time to read it.

I do not think that your position is considered and that you will find at least one confirmation of the "fitting of facts" on the part of selectionism. On the contrary, your position is an example of the national mentality: "Whatever the last book says to him, it will fall on top of his soul." It only remains to advise you to read good books. Nazarov is a historian speculating on a popular topic today. "On a difficult path". They made me laugh. Read, for example, Vorontsov; he is a serious researcher, a zoologist, who has passed through many proofs of selectionism through his own hands. And the latter, by the way, still remains the most well-founded theory of evolution. Of course, there is an interesting theory of epigenesis, but there are still many more holes in it than in "Darwinism".

Dormidont, please spare me the trouble of retelling the contents of textbooks on cultural studies and general biology. What is taught in schools and sometimes even in universities is very far from modern "scientific thought". And there is only one reason for this. It is in a certain inferiority of our education system. And if a person does not study at Moscow State University or St. Petersburg State University, he has only one thing left - self-education.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Tentator, I'll do it tomorrow

Your position is an example of the national mentality: "whatever the last book says to him, it will fall on top of his soul."

It seems to me that you are so arrogant and at the same time irreconcilable in your views that it will definitely not do you any good. You can't even imagine that the world can be organized differently from what is taught at Moscow State University or St. Petersburg State University. Believe me, I am not one of the gullible people who act on the principle described by you. However, I was very interested in your opinion on questions that give slightly different answers to the generally accepted course of things. Instead, you attacked the poor amateur that I am with a sword, and an implacable desire to destroy the latter. I may not be able to adequately oppose you in the facts, but even without this, your undisguised snobbery and obvious dogmatism are clearly visible. If you were born 300 years earlier in good old Europe, you would probably have been just as eager to defend the position of the Catholic Church and burn dissenters at the stake.

As you probably guessed, it was me Dormidont

Dormidont, no need to hide behind the mask of an amateur. You're a professional biologist. Is not it so? I'm sorry if I offended you; I don't have the slightest desire to "destroy" you, I just feel sorry for my time on empty philosophizing or discussing common points about how bedbugs see the world or how perfect amoebas are. Dogmatism? An interesting accusation. Recently, I heard how passionately accused of dogmatism of a person who denied telekinesis and some other devilry, in a word, that the world works differently than they teach at Moscow State University or St. Petersburg State University, and in Europe 300 years ago, thank God, no one was burned. 300 years ago, Carl Linnaeus was born.

Well, a polyphyletic taxon is not forbidden to be paraphyletic either.

Right. However, "simple" paraphilia, or paraphilia+polyphilia, are two big differences.