tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post1391597864401418924..comments2023-10-28T01:53:23.721-07:00Comments on Systematics and Biogeography: The Great Phenetic Revival 3: DNA BarcodingMalte C. Ebachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-36174286071527819662007-11-02T02:09:00.000-07:002007-11-02T02:09:00.000-07:00Coding taxa or areas (in a matrix) is problematic ...Coding taxa or areas (in a matrix) is problematic in both systematics and biogeography (see <A HREF="www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/8631_g06n3a1.pdf" REL="nofollow">Williams and Ebach 2004</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00928.x" REL="nofollow">Ebach et al. 2003</A>). You mentioned that "... otherwise even cladistics analyses will be accused of being phenetics!" this is a very interesting point you make and one that Dave and I will address soon.<BR/><BR/>"Phenetic" is a concept that we use to describe Soklal and Sneath's synthesis. Barcoding however is based on similarity and <B>not</B> relationship (two different things entirely) and therefore represents a phenetic world view. <BR/><BR/>Typology is a term that I should have discussed in the Terminology post. In fact, typology is an evolutionary concept that attempts to break away from any one particular evolutionary mechanism. The typologists wanted to find evidence for evolution based on the relationships between taxa and their homologues (homology) rather than proposing hypothetical ancestor-descendant relationships based on a doctrine or synthesis. Typology is structuralist rather than functionalist and has very little to do with barcoding.<BR/><BR/>The popular myth that typology is "bad" comes from Mayr who demonized it because did fit into his evolutionary synthesis. Most current definitions of typology are based on such "opinions" rather than on historical facts. <BR/><BR/>For more info on the history of typology see:<BR/><BR/>Amundson, R. 1998. Typology reconsidered: Two doctrines on the history of evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy 13: 153–177.<BR/><BR/>Winsor, M.P. 2003. Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 18: 387–400.Malte C. Ebachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-27385063827716064922007-11-01T11:05:00.000-07:002007-11-01T11:05:00.000-07:00I personally do not see anything wrong in "coding ...I personally do not see anything wrong in "coding taxa to be processed by numerical methods", and I would not say either that this is typical of phenetics, otherwise even cladistics analyses will be accused of being phenetics! :o<BR/><BR/>Regarding the DNA barcoding, Rob De salle has a very nice note discussing some of your concerns, basically the distinction between species identification and the discovery of species. <BR/><BR/>I am not sure if phenetics is a word that fits to the barcoding, I would say that is typological maybe but not phenetic.Ivonne Garzonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976984151645233496noreply@blogger.com