jurek
Well-known member
I can only echo Andrew147: Mysticete, you are misrepresenting my point.
Families, species etc. used now are not divorced from phylogeny. They all have common ancestor and all include this last common ancestor but not all its descendants.
This is the only option which saves the taxonomy from being slowly abandoned from practical use in biology and delegated to the small group of taxonomists.
Otherwise many taxonomic monstrosities will put anybody off taxonomy. Examples are modern birds as a family of dinosaurs, polar bear as a subspecies of brown bear, inculding dolphins and whales into pair-hoofed ungulates, Drosophila melanogaster being renamed etc.
Families, species etc. used now are not divorced from phylogeny. They all have common ancestor and all include this last common ancestor but not all its descendants.
This is the only option which saves the taxonomy from being slowly abandoned from practical use in biology and delegated to the small group of taxonomists.
Otherwise many taxonomic monstrosities will put anybody off taxonomy. Examples are modern birds as a family of dinosaurs, polar bear as a subspecies of brown bear, inculding dolphins and whales into pair-hoofed ungulates, Drosophila melanogaster being renamed etc.