Fallacies and false premises-a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany

One of the central controversies in contemporary taxonomy and systematics revolves around whether to accept or to reject paraphyletic taxa. The present review is the result of a survey of the ongoing discussion in botany over the past ca. 15 years, and attempts to systematically and critically assess all individual arguments presented for the formal recognition of paraphyletic groups in the classification of life. Where arguments are found to be without merit, rebuttals are presented in the hope of excluding them from further discussion, which can then concentrate on those that have merit. Where arguments are found to be sound, their implications and possible solutions are discussed. The controversy around paraphyletic taxa can be broken down into three questions: whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a classification better reflecting patterns of biological diversity and evolutionary history; whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a more practical, useful and predictive classification; and whether their rejection is compatible with ranked and binary Linnaean taxonomy. All available arguments for paraphyletic taxa relating to the first question are demonstrated to be based on various logical fallacies or false premises, especially misunderstandings of the principles of phylogenetic systematics. The issue of usefulness is harder to resolve, as different classifications serve different needs. It is presumably unavoidable but also preferable that phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic ways of classifying species continue to coexist, serving different needs. Finally, an insistence on monophyletic taxa is found to be incompatible with binary taxonomy under a set of very specific circumstances and assumptions whose presence and accuracy are not universally accepted.