Regarding Jean Allen-Ikeson question on DNA & molecular cladistics. This
question brings to mind one of my rants and raves against stupidity. Any
molecular cladistic tree that says Laelia tenebrosa and Sophronitis cernua
belong in the same genus is absurd nonesense. Obviously the DNA segments
chosen were inappropriate. Of the thousands of potential trees they chose
from, the one the computer picked as 'most parsimonious' is one that did
not happen out in nature. Garbage in garbage out systemics. The authors
of such schemes have no common sense, obviously are not looking at the
living organisms they are studying. The 250 years of accumulating taxonic
knowledge should not be ignored. If a molecular cladistic scheme predicts
absurd groupings, then it is not useful, as these groupings do not reflect
actual relationships in nature.
Are there any groups of researchers challenging the papers from
the one group I am referring to? I haven't seen anything lately,
Leo
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
