[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: definition of dinosaur
George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) claims:
> Indeed. Now cladists can give three different names to essentially the same
> taxon. This is supposed to be beneficial to taxonomy.
So, for those of us who are s-l-o-w, would you please clarify
something? First you say that cladistic taxonomy is bad because:
] The only names allowed in cladistic taxonomies are those attached to
] the nodes of a cladogram. The terminal nodes are the species (or
] monophyletic groups collapsed into single nodes), the branch nodes
] are the supraspecific taxa. This is inadequate because (1) the True
] Phylogeny is not necessarily modeled by a cladogram ...
When I point out that your premise is wrong, you say that cladistic
taxonomy is bad because it allows what you first said it should? I
don't know about everybody else on the list, but I try to form my
opinions after learning some facts, not create arguments to support my
opinions irrespective of the facts. Personally I think any
responsible person would do the same.
Mickey Rowe (email@example.com)