Isn’t cladistic classification contradictory to Linnean systematics, as Magnus Lidén claims?

The Swedish systematist Magnus Lidén at the Evolutionary Biology Centre in Uppsala university claims at the community “ResearchGate” that there is no contradiction between cladistic classification and Linnean systematics. This claim requires clarification.

Magnus is basically right, the difference between cladistics and Linnean systematics is that they are orthogonal classifications, ie, diametrically opposed: cladistics classifying only over (along) time, whereas Linnean systematics classifying first in time and then over time. It means that they are not contradictory, but mutually exclusive.

However, cladistics chooses to turn this mutual exclusion into a contradiction by “denying” what it calls “paraphyletic groups”, since this denial actually denies the first classification in Linnean systematics (ie, in time). This denial thus turns cladistics contradictory to Linnean systematics by denying Linnean systematics. Cladistics is thus contradictory to Linnean systematics if it “denies” its so-called “paraphyletic groups”.

The cladistic denial of its so-called “paraphyletic groups”, in turn, is merely a logical consequence of the cladistic classification, since recognition of this kind of group is inconsistent with the cladistic classification and thus turning the cladistic classification internally inconsistent. It means that cladistic classification has to be contradictory to Linnean systematics to be internally consistent. This fact means that Magnus actually claims that cladistics does not deny its so-called “paraphyletic groups” and thus is internally inconsistent (failing to incorporate its primary classification in time consistently), which indeed is a surprising claim by implicitly acknowledging that cladistics is internally inconsistent.

Facts of the matter is thus that: cladistic classification is not contradictory to Linnean systematics in itself, but has to contradict Linnean systematics by denying what it calls ”paraphyletic groups” to attain internal consistency.

Magnus is thus right, although perhaps not in the way he thinks. Cladistic classification is not contradictory to Linnean systematics. It is just internally inconsistent in failing to incorporate its primary classification in time (ie, of the present) consistently. But, it turns itself contradictory to Linnean systematics by “denying” what it calls “paraphyletic groups” in that thereby also contradict (ie, deny the consistency of) Linnean systematics. This denial is thus plain wrong. It is not Linnean systematics, but cladistic classification that is inconsistent, although consistently inconsistent. Without this denial, however, cladistics is just an inconsistent version of Linnean systematics, a conclusion that also agrees with Magnus’ claim. Cladistic classification is thus not contradictory to Linnean systematics (as Magnus correctly claims), but merely an inconsistent version of it.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/