[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Speaking of taxonomy, a recent issue of Skeptic magazine (Vol. 6 No. 4
1998) has an interview with Jack Horner in which he briefly discusses
what he sees as a problem historical and current classification systems
have dealing with transitional forms. Many on this list have probably
spoken with JH about this and have far more insight into his thinking
than I, but the article suggests that he's proposing to account for
transitional forms by showing hypothesized ancestor-descendent
relationships as "versions" of a taxon (Tyrannosaurus 1.0, Tyrannosaurus
1.5, 1.6, etc.) in a cladogram. An example he offers of transition (his
words) begins with Styracosaurs from the Judith River Formation in
Alberta (75 Ma), through 3 transitional forms found in the Two Medicine
formation of Montana, to Pachyrhynosaurus of the Horseshoe Canyon
Formation in Alberta (68 Ma). Versions 1.0 through 1.5 of Styracosaurus?
This article is all of read of this idea, and it certainly seems to have
problems of its own. Anyone heard any more about this?