On the Other "Phylogenetic Systematics".

Area of Science:

• Systematic Biology
• Taxonomy
• Phylogenetics

Background:

• A recent serial paper by De Queiroz and Gauthier critiques the current state of biological taxonomy.
• They argue that prevailing taxonomist beliefs are archaic and that many practitioners are essentialists.
• The paper advocates for abandoning current nomenclature for a new system based on "Phylogenetic Systematics".

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the stability of the proposed "node-pointing" system in Phylogenetic Systematics.
• To compare the stability of "node-pointing" with the existing Linnaean System of nomenclature.
• To demonstrate that the proposed system is less stable than the current Linnaean System.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the theoretical framework of "Phylogenetic Systematics" as presented by De Queiroz and Gauthier.
• Examination of provided examples to assess the claimed stability of "node-pointing".
• Application of a rational method to measure the net change in taxa under different classification systems.

Main Results:

• The paper argues that the proposed "node-pointing" system lacks specific rules and relies on vague assertions like "clades are individuals."
• Examples provided in the original paper demonstrate that "node-pointing" is less stable than claimed.
• The study shows that the "node-pointing" system is less stable than the Linnaean System when stability is measured by changes in included taxa.

Conclusions:

• The proposed "Phylogenetic Systematics" approach, particularly its "node-pointing" method, is less stable than the existing Linnaean System.
• The "node-pointing" system is detached from empirical evidence, usage, and group composition, leading to instability.
• The current Linnaean System offers greater rational stability for biological classification compared to the proposed alternative.