Why heirarchical taxonomy? Linnean system vs. Phylocode?

Can interbreed and produce viable offspring? Quite rare, in fact (though not unheard of)[added in edit, because I realised I didn't actually make a point in my post]:which hybridizations do you have in mind? I mean hybridizations that challenge the biological species concept.This message has been edited by mick, 04-08-2005 05:41 PM

razd is right.in fact "kind" is not even a system. it's one of the most stupid generalized terms I can imagine to describe the diversity of life.I think it's worth taking a moment to praise taxonomists. There would be no biology whatsoever without them. It is through their systematic, thorough, and objective lens that biology has taken shape over the last century or so.mick

well, genera and orders don't even exist. I don't see the point in adding a new non-existent grouping...

I'm pretty sure that individual organisms exist. And I can accept theories of reproductive isolation that show that species really exist.If you placed two unknown organisms in front of me, I could form a reasonable judgement on whether they're distinct individuals or not, although that may be difficult. I could try to mate them together, and could consequently also make a judgement on whether they're different species or not.But I can't think of any experiment that might let me decide whether they are different genera, supergenera, families, kinds, baramins, what have you. As far as I am concerned, I deal with individual organisms which may or may not be reproductively isolated from each other and which can be organised cladistically into a hierarchical structure.The individual and the species might be real distinct biological entities based on our understanding of gene flow and population genetics. Any taxonomic hierarchy above that level is suspect, but might be useful for various reasons. But those higher taxonomic levels are not real biological entities.

isn't that what evolutionary biologists always say on this board? macroevolution=microevolution?

Well, yes, but that's why we have phylogenetics.Phylogenetics has proven to be the best way of inferring the existence of the branches. Taxonomy, on the other hand, is notoriously unreliable as an indicator of genuine branch positions in the tree of life.the taxonomy of mammals, for example, is now being forced to change because it faces the challenge of molecular phylogenetic insights that conflict with the traditional classification. Taxonomy of mammals prior to molecular phylogeny was simply incorrect. (for example see Page Not Found | California Academy of Sciences). That is why taxonomy isn't very useful when it comes to inferring deep branches of the tree of life.