The importance of comprehensive phylogenetic (evolutionary) classification—a response to Schmidt‐Lebuhn's commentary on paraphyletic taxa. (11th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stuessy, Tod F.; Hörandl, Elvira
• Is Part Of: Cladistics. Volume 30:Number 3(2014:Jun.)
• Page Start: 291
• Page End: 293
• Publication Date: 2013-06-11
• Subjects: Cladistic analysis -- Periodicals; 578.012
• DOI: 10.1111/cla.12038
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-3007

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="cla12038-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>The review of paraphyly in botanical systematics by Schmidt‐Lebuhn brings together a number of useful perspectives for the reader. It fails to offer new ideas, however, and it does not recognize the fallacies of strict cladistic classification, namely accepting only holophyletic groups, and insisting that sister groups have the same rank. The reason for adherence to these rules is to maintain the <italic>convenience</italic> of cladistic classification. While convenience in biological classification by itself is not necessarily bad, it becomes unacceptable when its use overshadows achieving a higher level of evolutionary (and phylogenetic) information content. Evolutionary divergence and reticulation are both significant parts of the evolutionary process that cannot be ignored in biological classification and that are necessary for high predictive quality.</p> </abstract>