Taxonomy and Cladistics

STANDARD DISCLAIMER
	What we're interested in here, is looking at how LATINATE and Greek base words convey meaning.
		So we don't care about what precisely is taxonomy in a biology setting; nor cladistics for a classifications course; we're merely looking to convey meaning to anyone with basics in Greek/Latin.
	And recall: final essay question is do we keep Greek/Latin bases in our language, or do we turn it all into a Germanic-purist simplistic system “tooth doctor > dentist”

So this gives us some idea, “what are the benefits, the downsides, of using Greek and Latin.” And as we start to look at these two subjects this will allow us to start looking at this.

SO
TAXONOMY
and
CLADISTICS

TAX o NOM y
We will start paying attention not only to bases, prefixes – now we want to look more at suffixes and how they change to convey meaning.

The convention of how we break things down:
BASES ARE ALWAYS ALL CAPS.
.buffel vowels are always non-italic;
another base (NOM);
and a suffix gets a non-italic text.
ITALICS are used for prefixes (and if the prefix is a base; don't.)
	These are helpful visual aids.

TAXONOMY
Two major ways you can classify living organisms; this is what it wants to do. To take all life, and to put them into some kind of a set.

Dermatophage: cat fungi infection of skin (ringworm)

So taxonomy covers the blue whale, down to plankton.

DERMAT + o + PHAG
Skin + buffer + eat + e
What does this e do? It makes it into a noun. Thus, 'the thing that eats skin'.

FAKE WORD: dermatophagize
	Changing the suffix changes the meaning of the word.
		'ize' forms a verb.
			So what is it to dermatophagize? It is the action of eating skin; to eat skin. Much like to cannibalize is to eat human flesh. To theorize is to make a theory.

What then is a dermatophagizer? Agent noun added - that which is eating.
Note the consistencies; the suffix is what is changing. This changes if it is a noun, an adjective, or an agent noun.

What's easier, then? To call it a 'dermatophage', or to call it a 'skin eater'?
	This is something to keep in mind for the final exam. Blind adherence to grammar, and thus making larger and clunkier words – or using convention, and using an 'incorrect' term, for convenience.
		Yet surely this would still be easier than calling it 'the fungus of the skin which eats'.

Taxonomy is an attempt to categorize among SIMILARITIES.

SIMILIS: similar

Not just dermatophage, the technical vocabulary – but so too the standard English vocabulary is also Latin heavy. Will we ever willingly stop using 'similar' for 'like'? Probably not.

Taxonomy of the Red Fox
 Domain -> Kingdom - > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species
Eukarys - > Animalia - > Chordata -> Mammalia -> Carnivora -> Canidae -> Vulpes -> Vulpes vulpes

All life belongs to the Domain Eukarys.
EU + KARY + a
Good + cell/nucleus / noun former
	The thing which possesses a 'well organized'; or 'good'; organisms or cells.

We have now ranks.

Captain outranks private.
	So this brings with it certain 'better'ness- but it's not so. It's instead a hierarchy of a certain extent; put into an order; but it does not bring judgement with it; it merely shows that you move from the larger to the smaller.
		Thus it is now preferrable to call them, 'taxons'.
			TAX on
			Order/Level
			Rank can suggest outranking; not so here. Does not imply highness or lowerness.

TAX comes from a verb, 'to put in order'; TAXon is the order itself; the row-upon-row organization of animal life.

TAXONOMY THUS IS A WAY TO ORGANIZE THINGS.

TAXON: a number of different taxons, levels, in this particular thing (the red fox). When it comes to any life -  we want to be able to group all like characteristics. So thus both the blue whale and the fungus belong to the same taxon; Eukarya.
	Both belong to the same kingdom; Animalia.
		Yet only one belongs to the Phylum Chordata; the ringworm here navigates to its own taxon.

			Like goes with like – like seriation of archaeological finds, or basic metaphysics exercises.

So each of these 'rungs' proceeds down, from larger to small, based on like qualities.

We can have sub-taxons.
	A beneath-organization of life. A slightly lower order.

There are also super-taxons.
	An above-organzation of life. A slightly higher order.

You can subdivice the action of subdividing. But each division can be further subdivided.
	What we're trying to do is find some way to place things.

Back to TAXONOMY
TAX: ROW or ORDER
NOM: Name
y: form
The act of putting things into order.

TAXONOM – ical
	ical: a taxonomic organization. Ical, cal, al. This depends on the word used. This allows us to create an adjective.

One of the prof's favorite things:
	Dr. Liveus (?) made it popular. But he did invent or make popular a way to use this to make our lives easier ...

BINOMIAL

BI: two
NOM: name
ial: makes it an adjective.

Polynomial:
POLY many
NOM: name

Dr. Lineus worked against 'latin sentence names'. He wanted something simpler.
	“A plantain with leaves that are egg shaped, which are longer than they are broad, and are also hairy. And they have a spike, which is cylindrical; and it has a stem-like flowering stalk; this is circular in cross section.”
		Far TOO much information than is needed!	And Dr Lineus worked against this, as the common practice.

After all, 'homo sapiens'. We don't use the latin equivalent for 'that which walks on two legs and farms and is not a chicken and raises dogs and the only species to tell jokes'. Why do that, when 'wise man' is just as apt?

This polynomial – MANY NAME SYSTEM – countered with a BINOMIAL or a TWO NAME system.

The BINOMIAL SYSTEM: genus, and species.
	Tyrannasaurus: genus.
		Rex: species.
			By convention: the genus gets capitals, the species does not.

What about Homo homo sapiens?

Our genus: human being (Homo);
and our species (homo sapiens; the wise man)
Why then don't we say homo homo sapiens? Euphonics. It is reduced; it's pointless to say the same thing twice.

Latin's beauty: it's dead-ness.
	That is to say, it isn't changing any more with every generation.
		And thus it is a language that we can use and, excepting something horrifying happening worldwide, we'll never lose it; or resurrect it as a living langauge a la Hebrew
			Latin CAN of course change- and it does to some extent- but generally it's frowned upon to do so at all. The stability is what is important.
			Example: decimate (1/10th) in Latin. Decimate (9/10th) in English. Its meaning has reversed.

But will tyrannosaurus change? Unlikely.

Nomenclature:
NOMEN CLAT
NOMEN CALL
The resulting body of called names.

Binomial nomenclature is governmed by the ICZN: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Zo: the root for 'living'.
What thus is zoology?
The study of that which is living; animals in particular (not plants, algae, fungi).

Zoology is thus animals.
	The second 'o'? A buffer vowel. The base is merely 'zo'.


A move towards CLADISTICS

When it comes to taxonomy, you put every living organism into a taxon, from the general and to the specific.
	This is all in a linear description or representation, from large -> small.

Cladistics is not rungs on a ladder; but the clay things are put into.

CLAD + e
Branch + noun

Cladistics:
Putting things on a tree, basically.

So we are trying to classify things PHYLOGENETICALLY.

PHYL o GENE tic
PHYL: race (not a footrace; a group of living organisms) + buffer + BEING/EXISTENCE + adjective former.
	The idea: going back from say the earliest cat ever, to the housecat.
		SO we group people together on branches, or things, on what is essentially a family tree.

CLADOGRAM: A depiction (a graph) OF the branches.
NOTE: generally graph = TO WRITE
		gram = that which is WRITTEN

But why is a graph depicted on a board not a gram? Because language is arbitrary and convention is ultimately king.
	Just recognize that through convention common uses change. Because we constantly talk of telegrams; we now go to the telegram office; and because gram/graph are used so often, the words start to change.
		English: the cat burglar of languages
			“It truly is a mutt language.”

So a cladogram is depicting the descent, if you'd like, the 'branching off' of a species; how, at one point, the very first ancestor evolved; and how bifrication occurs.

Cladistics: examining the evolutionary change of a particular group of things.
	Looking at all plants: it should go back to the first green algae ancestor.

So instead of a reverse triangle, we're instead trying to find some way to depict similarities AND differences, to their first ancestor.

First algae ancestor moves, bifricates, and moves off into other plants.

BI + FURC + ate
Two + Fork/Split + adjective
The two branching.

DENDR + o + GRAM
Tree + o + depiction
It resembles a tree! So the cladogram is an OK term; and also the dendrogram. Or... phylogram, a depiction of races.
(PHYLO =/= PHYTO!)
Race		Life

Synapomorphies
	These will occur when we draw up cladograms.
“A derived trait that is shared by two or more taxa or shared ancestry.”

Syn +			apo +		MORPH 	+ ies
Together/with		Away/from     FORM=MORPH    plural noun

That which shares a shared characteristic.
	How then do we get this meaning from the words? Together with and away from?!

Apomorphic: the characteristic where we start to divide; the characteristic where we begin to distinguish ourselves from.

PLESI + o + MORPH + ic
Closest + buffer + form + adjective former
	The 'closest-to' form. The earliest stage closest to the earliest common ancestor.

Bifurcate: divided/forked into two. This is what distinguishes us from common ancestors; where it branches off.