> Have you ever picked up something and wondered, 'what is that?' Taxonomists help answer that question by dutifully documenting phenotypic (trait) and genotypic (genetic) differences among living things that allow them to be quickly distinguished and identified.
Let us be honest that very often it is simply a matter of arbitrary definitions.
A problem of the taxonomy of “reptiles” vs “birds” is that Crocodilians are genetically more related to any bird than they are to any other reptile, but they are still grouped with “reptiles” rather than “birds", for instance.
> Placing organisms into categories is useful so that instead of describing a slew of characteristics, we can simply use broad categories as reference points to inform us not only about the nature of an individual, but also about its relationship to other similar organisms.
The categories produced by taxonomy produce guidelines at best, not rules, traits that correlate and guidelines that apply when they do, and not when they not do so.
I do not believe there is all that much use to it, as nothing can really be concluded from the knowledge that species s belongs to group g.
> A new organism classified as a vertebrate, for example, will be commonly understood to have a spine composed of vertebrae.
The Hagfish is a famous example of a vertebrate that lost it's spine by evolution.
> We have arrived at our first reason fungi are not plants: fungi lack chloroplasts. This verdant, unifying feature of plants
Yet there are plants that lack chloroplasts, and animals that have them.
> Reason 3: Molecular Evidence Demonstrates Fungi Are More Closely Related to Animals Than to Plants
Yet, as said, crocodillians are more closely related to birds than to any other reptile, and are still called reptiles.
Biological taxonomy is not completely arbitrary and there is some rhyme to it, but much of that rhyme is gut feeling, and the arguments this article raises can easily be shown to not be so absolute as the article would suggest they are. If the article's tone would be to be believed, then the plants that lack chloroplasts, and the vertebrates that lack vertebræ, would no longer be classified as such, and that is clearly not the case.
I am not so impressed with mankind's seeming compulsion to classify what won't, and to invent classification schemes that seem rather wanting to classify for it's own sake.
This is hardly the biggest problem; the various attempts at classification in psychology have shown to be even more problematic than this.
> A problem of the taxonomy of “reptiles” vs “birds” is that Crocodilians are genetically more related to any bird than they are to any other reptile, but they are still grouped with “reptiles” rather than “birds", for instance.
All models are tentative. Note that modern paleontological papers now refer to dinosaurs as “non-avian dinosaurs”. Give it time and the commonly recognized groupings of today will change.
There is a difference between the model being tentative, and objects within that model being able to be moved from one classification to the other after mere debate and politics.
Such things do not happen in many models, as the classifications are based upon universal rules not open for interpretation or subjective assessment.
> Note that modern paleontological papers now refer to dinosaurs as “non-avian dinosaurs”. Give it time and the commonly recognized groupings of today will change.
Quite, but they are not really referring to reptiles as non-crocodillian reptiles very often.
Let us be honest that very often it is simply a matter of arbitrary definitions.
A problem of the taxonomy of “reptiles” vs “birds” is that Crocodilians are genetically more related to any bird than they are to any other reptile, but they are still grouped with “reptiles” rather than “birds", for instance.
> Placing organisms into categories is useful so that instead of describing a slew of characteristics, we can simply use broad categories as reference points to inform us not only about the nature of an individual, but also about its relationship to other similar organisms.
The categories produced by taxonomy produce guidelines at best, not rules, traits that correlate and guidelines that apply when they do, and not when they not do so.
I do not believe there is all that much use to it, as nothing can really be concluded from the knowledge that species s belongs to group g.
> A new organism classified as a vertebrate, for example, will be commonly understood to have a spine composed of vertebrae.
The Hagfish is a famous example of a vertebrate that lost it's spine by evolution.
> We have arrived at our first reason fungi are not plants: fungi lack chloroplasts. This verdant, unifying feature of plants
Yet there are plants that lack chloroplasts, and animals that have them.
https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.a...
> Reason 3: Molecular Evidence Demonstrates Fungi Are More Closely Related to Animals Than to Plants
Yet, as said, crocodillians are more closely related to birds than to any other reptile, and are still called reptiles.
Biological taxonomy is not completely arbitrary and there is some rhyme to it, but much of that rhyme is gut feeling, and the arguments this article raises can easily be shown to not be so absolute as the article would suggest they are. If the article's tone would be to be believed, then the plants that lack chloroplasts, and the vertebrates that lack vertebræ, would no longer be classified as such, and that is clearly not the case.
I am not so impressed with mankind's seeming compulsion to classify what won't, and to invent classification schemes that seem rather wanting to classify for it's own sake.
This is hardly the biggest problem; the various attempts at classification in psychology have shown to be even more problematic than this.