[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Linnean Classification and Creationism



In a message dated 95-12-14 15:29:00 EST, cpretzma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(Chip Pretzman) writes:

>Dino George replies:
>>Even these are arbitrary: When are two species close enough to be
>congeneric?<<<
>
>The defintion of congeneric refers to two or more species that share the
>same genus.  What do you mean by this retort?  Congeric refers to congeners,
>as in 'co-genera', and there are lots of species close enough to be
>congeneric, nearly all in essence.
>
>

Why did we consider small cats all to be in the genus _Felis_ at once time,
but now there are several genera to hold those species? What changed? Why is
_Brontosaurus excelsus_ considered to be in _Apatosaurus_ instead of in its
own genus? If the genus _Homo_ descended from the genus _Australopithecus_,
why isn't _Australopithecus_ a junior synonym of _Homo_? Why are _Barosaurus_
and _Diplodocus_ in separate genera? Why aren't _Stegosaurus ungulatus_ and
_Stegosaurus stenops_ in separate genera, or _Brachiosaurus altithorax_ and
_Briachiosaurus brancai_?

How similar is "similar enough to be congeneric"?