[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fixing dinosaurian carnivour question
At 12:05 PM 5/26/99 -0400, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
>If you want to be *SCIENTIFIC*, then we must regard birds as dinosaurs.
I think this is much too strong. As Peter Ashlock has shown, it is
perfectly *possible* to define and use paraphyletic groups in a scientific
and, at least arguably meaningful, manner.
Whether this approach is sufficiently useful to be added to the repertoire
of taxonomy is a different question. But Ashlock's methods remain
scientific even if it is concluded they are of limited utility.
[Now, I would suggest that the frequent need to refer to "non-avian
dinosaurs" points towards a utility in the old definition].
May the peace of God be with you. firstname.lastname@example.org