rising@utzoo.UUCP (Jim Rising) (11/06/87)
I agree that there isn't much in a name. Cain & Harrison (1960) defined
phenetic as "...arrangement by overall similarity, based on all available
characters without any weighting." Sneath & Sokal (1973) modify this to
"...phenetic relationship...[is] similarity (resemblance) based on a set
of phenotypic characteristics of the objects or organisms under study."
Joel Craycraft likes to call Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization
work "phenetic" to (I think) needle Sibley (it's Craycraft's idea of the
ultimate insult, and taken by Sibley as such). I confess, based on the
definitions given above I would not object to calling Sibley's work
"phenetic," but without implied criticism. I suspect that cladists often
throw out much useful information in what is often a quixotic search for
phylogeny.
--Jim Rising
--
Name: Jim Rising
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!risingfelsenst@entropy.ms.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) (11/12/87)
In article <8892@utzoo.UUCP> rising@utzoo.UUCP (Jim Rising) writes: > >Joel Craycraft likes to call Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization >work "phenetic" to (I think) needle Sibley (it's Craycraft's idea of the >ultimate insult, and taken by Sibley as such). I confess, based on the >definitions given above I would not object to calling Sibley's work >"phenetic," but without implied criticism. I suspect that cladists often >throw out much useful information in what is often a quixotic search for >phylogeny. This points out the confusion between methods for inferring phylogenies (DNA hybridization vs. parsimony, for example) and philosophies of classification (strictly monophyletic vs. based on overall similarity). From talking to Charles Sibley I know that he believes strongly that *all* groups in the classification system should be *strictly* monophyletic. That makes him a cladist in his views on classification, maybe a stricter one than Joel Cracraft. But if his methods of inferring phylogeny are judged "phenetic" than we are in a never-never land populated by cladists who are pheneticists and pheneticists who are cladists, etc. ad nauseam. I say let's use the terms "pheneticist" and "cladist" to characterize someone's views on classification, and not to name-call about methods of inferring phylogeny. Then maybe we'll be able to see that all data has some information in it, and all methods their assumptions and limitations. Then we can work on properties and assumptions and get away from name-calling. 'Nuf said. ----- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics SK-50, Univ. of Washington, Seattle WA 98195 BITNET: uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe%uw-beaver.ARPA@UWAVM or uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe%uw-beaver.ARPA@UWAVM.ACC.WASHINGTON.EDU ARPANET: uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe@beaver.cs.washington.edu or uw-evolution!joe%entropy.ms@beaver.cs.washington.edu UUCP: ... uw-beaver!uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe