[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Addendum to Survey
>Amado Narvaez writes;
>>Which brings up another question. Have scientists outside the
>>paleontology community embraced cladistics whole-heartedly?
>Most biology fields use cladistics quite regularly (I've heard the
>blasted term used in almost all of my biology courses). Cladistics
>may not have any direct relation for a vet, but he/she would've heard
>the term off and on through their educational career.
More to the point, cladistics was developed with neontology (modern biology)
in mind. Paleontologists (and especially dinosaur and invert specialists)
are infamous for their late and grudging acceptance of cladistics!
Entomologists, ichthyologists, mammalogists, herpetologists: many of these
fields had important phylogenetic systematics papers in the 1970s, while the
first major dinosaur cladograms came out in the mid-1980s. Dinosaur
cladistic researchers can trace their intellectual and academic heritage
back to two signifanct paleo- and neoherpetological workers: the late
Richard Estes, a lizard specialist, and Eugene Gaffney, a turtle specialist.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742