[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: TETRAPODS, PHYLOGENETIC TAXONOMY, AND CLEAR DEFINITIONS
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> I'll try and keep this one brief.
So will I. Why does it seem that certain people on this list are incapable of
comprehending simple English?
> >Would it? If the diagnosis of Dinosauria is as you state, then an animal
> must have
> >both those features to be a dinosaur.
> Ankylosaurs don't have a perforate acetabulum: they must not be dinosaurs
> under your rules.
I said **IF**, didn't I? See, right there: "If the diagnosis of Dinosauria is
you state, then . . ." The presence of the word "if" makes the statement a
conditional one: _if_ X is true, _then_ Y follows.
-- Jon W.