numerical taxonomy

From
Date
Reply-To
On numerical taxonomy and/or the use of numbers in paleontology, discussion
runs the risk of trying to deal with two issues.   The first is numeracy;
can any paleonetter give strong reasons why paleontologists should ignore
numerical approaches to our discipline?  Paleontologists should take an
informed and critical approach to numeracy while accepting that some
studies warrant non-numeric techniques.

Secondly, the point of the original query was numerical taxonomy - one of
several procedural tools to allow one to cluster organisms.  Whether the
results of numerical taxonomy (= phenetics, and probably also =
stratophenetics) are any "better" than those of other approaches, such as
cladistics or evolutionary systematics (sensu G.G. Simpson), will depend on
what sort of problem is being tackled.  For a useful overview of the
history and philosophy of classification, see:

Hull, David L.  1988.  Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the
social and conceptual development of science.  University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.  586 p.

On the theme of taxonomy, potentially a more serious issue for paleontology
is the rise of molecular systematics.  Some recent literature implies that
molecular taxonomy is the ONLY  tool worth using to resolve the phylogeny
of many - most? - all? - living groups.  Conflicts between the results of
traditional and molecular approaches are taken to indicate the superiority
of molecular approaches.  Yet, most paleonetters know that the fossil
record is essential to establish the minimum ages of clades, and to expand
knowledge of taxa and characters available for taxonomic work.  It is up to
us to publish soundly detailed analyses which serve as potential tests for
molecular phylogenies.  Let's not allow paleontological systematics to lose
its identity.

Regards, Ewan

R. Ewan Fordyce, Associate Professor, Department of Geology,
University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, NZ
fax 64-3-479-7527, ph. 64-3-479-7510, home ph. 64-3-473-0463