tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19216099.post4683573359266147754..comments2024-02-16T06:03:12.489-06:00Comments on BrummellBlog: The Localness of TaxonomyTheBrummellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08973380652057861796noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19216099.post-81115576052130017092007-05-25T08:04:00.000-06:002007-05-25T08:04:00.000-06:00Cool, thanks for the book suggestions, Carlo. I r...Cool, thanks for the book suggestions, Carlo. I realize that nature doesn't make neat little boxen (except in the literal sense; e.g. cells), and human brain wiring leads to conflicts with reality (many conflicts). <BR/><BR/>I think of taxonomy as a useful sort of first-guess phylogeny. In my mind, families should all be about the same age (20 million years?), as should orders, classes, genera etc, with the obvious exception of species, which are the only biologically real part of the entire structure.<BR/><BR/>Categorizing variation sounds like a much better approach, and is something I also think about on a regular basis. I'll have to check those books out.TheBrummellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973380652057861796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19216099.post-12503660869190928892007-05-24T18:35:00.000-06:002007-05-24T18:35:00.000-06:00Well man, it's the trade off between the usefulnes...Well man, it's the trade off between the usefulness of taxonomy vs. it's meaning.<BR/><BR/>If you read Gould, it would appear that most taxonomists agree on what constitutes valid differences between species that would place them in the fame Family vs. seperate Genera for example. But the actual taxonomic level itself is fairly arbitrary: Nature does not make neat little boxes.<BR/><BR/>Two books that deal with this quite in depth are Ernst Mayr's <I>The Growth of Biological Thought</I> (which Wilfried just read through) and Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus. <BR/><BR/>Actually, if you can find any info about <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey" REL="nofollow">Alfred Kinsey's</A> approach to taxonomy, you could see what kind of approach an evolutionist (who actually understood evolution) would take with taxonomy: Categorizing variation within and between species rather than using averages.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153076425887492166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19216099.post-46279815786423478082007-05-24T12:59:00.000-06:002007-05-24T12:59:00.000-06:00All these organizational schemes seem pretty arbit...All these organizational schemes seem pretty arbitrary anyway. I suggest you come up with your own cladistics scheme and run with it. In fact, one of your grouping should include daddy long-legs and sea cucumbers and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>Not a non sequeter, but back in highschool I went on a camping trip with a friend who was deathly afraid of daddy long-legs, and our camp was full of them. They were everywhere: crawling around the site, invading our tents, etc. He tried to get away or otherwise ignore them, but I'd kill them, pick them up and chase him around the campsite waving them in his face. Good times.King Aardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785457928646226831noreply@blogger.com