jurek
Well-known member
My point was to look for objective separation of groups (like orders of birds), and mathematical support to their distinction/lack of distinction. This can be done with phylogenetics and cladistics just as well.
So a discussion a bit shifted... But indeed, it is time to move to non-phylogenetic groups. Or rather, realize that non-phylogenetic groups are already as much present in modern biology as phylogenetic ones.
Phylogenetics 50 years ago was using limited number of mostly well visible characters. So a non-phylogenetic group used to be so superficially similar that practically useless (eg. fish+whales or birds+bats). Now phylogenetics was narrowed to monophyletics, and clades are picked on DNA analysis. Therefore there exist now many paraphyletic groups which are more useful practically than many monophyletic groups which have nothing in common but some DNA strings.
So a discussion a bit shifted... But indeed, it is time to move to non-phylogenetic groups. Or rather, realize that non-phylogenetic groups are already as much present in modern biology as phylogenetic ones.
Phylogenetics 50 years ago was using limited number of mostly well visible characters. So a non-phylogenetic group used to be so superficially similar that practically useless (eg. fish+whales or birds+bats). Now phylogenetics was narrowed to monophyletics, and clades are picked on DNA analysis. Therefore there exist now many paraphyletic groups which are more useful practically than many monophyletic groups which have nothing in common but some DNA strings.
