[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: labels are imaginary
On Tue, 6 Feb 1996 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-02-05 21:31:19 EST, pharrinj@PLU.edu (Nicholas J.
> Pharris) writes:
> >Sorry, Mr. Olshevsky. Thank you for playing.
> >Sheer numbers of species have little to do with real disparity. IMHO
> >there is a heck of a lot more disparity between _Deinonychus_ and
> >_Diplodocus_ than between _Deinonychus_ and _Dromaius_.
> There's a heck of a lot less disparity between _Diplodocus_ and
> _Titanosaurus_ than there is between _Deinonychus_ and _Dromaius_, or between
> _Deinonychus_ and a hummingbird. That's the important disparity here. The
> disparity between _Diplodocus_ and _Deinonychus_ is completely irrelevant.
I never tried to say that diplodocids should have a class separate from
the rest of the dinosaurs, which seems to be what you are trying to refute.
The disparity between _Diplodocus_ and _Deinonychus_ is the operative
concept here, if one is trying to make a case for classifying these
animals together and separating them from the emu or the hummingbird.
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman