Is classification in a mess?

[delboy]

Maybe a mess is a bit strong, but undergoing change that makes some things a bit problematic?

 

I can understand that applying strict cladistic principles is important in evolutionary study. And I think that many (evolutionary) biologists may only be interested in closeness of relationships and branch points and less interested in naming and grouping things.

 

But I'm also wondering how important it is that new insights into relationships filter through to the lay person. Do people need to understand the slightly unscientific nature of groupings such as reptile, bird, mammal or dinosaur in their traditional meaning. Or can we go on using these names without a problem?

 

Is it that classification and evolution are incompatible concepts. Birds are a good clade. But traditional reptiles now need to include birds, so birds have to become reptiles. But going back a couple of steps, reptiles evolved from lobe-finned fish so have to be called lobe-finned fish (as do all tetrapods). Taking it to extreme, everything needs to be called a bacteria (or archaea, which ever came first).

 

Is classification based on strict cladistics problematic? For example referring to ray finned fish is not much problem - as a clade everything is 'fishy'. But when referring to lobe-finned fish (or whatever name you might invent for the group) you would have to include bats, birds, frogs, dinosaurs and whales. In strict science terms this is true, but it's never going to filter through to general public use surely.

 

Where is classification going? Is there room for continued use of grade as well as clade? For example if you say 'mammal' you are naturally assumed to include antelopes within that definition. Likewise, with strict cladistics, if you say 'lobe-finned fish' you must be assumed to include all tetrapods and there should not be any concept of lobe-finned fish that are exclusively 'fish-like' and aquatic.