[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Wagner's yearly attempt at establishing verbal rigour [was: Re: Biggest Predators]

        This year, the otherwise quite careful and conscientuous Mike Keesey
gets to star as the object lesson for Wagner's anal retentive phrasing patrol.

T. Mike Keesey wrote:
>_G._ and _C._ are carcharodontosaurids. There is a minority opinion that
>carcharodontosaurids are related to abelisaurids, [...]
        The majority apparently considering them to be descended from space
aliens, I take it?
        Remember, ladies and gentlemen, *all* life is related. This "X is
not related to Y" crud is an artifact of taxonomic rank, and wasn't even all
that accurate under typological taxonomy anyway. I will stake several small
cities on carcharodontosaurids and abelisaurids shareing at least one, and
probably a tremendous number of common ancestors. Otherwise, how do you
explain the fantastic similarities in their skeletons (i.e. having orbits,
infratemporal fenestrae, teeth, vertebrae, pelves, etc. etc. etc. asd
infinitum)? If two animals share a common ancestor, they are related. As far
as we know, all animals share a common ancestor. Therefor all animals are
"related", no matter how many different "families" you create to stick them in.

        End of overly-pedantic rant.

        Sorry Mike.


     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
 "Only those whose life is short can truly believe that love is forever"-Lorien