[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Eponymous Taxa [was: RE: new _Scleromochlus_ ref]
Of course you could clear this all up so easily by sacrificing all names
above genus level and replacing them with numbers if only that weren't so
darned daunting to would-be students of palaeontology and professors alike.
Both daunting to do abd daunting to plow through afterwards. Still - it's
nice to know we have an emergency plan in case nothing else works.
----- Original Message -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Eponymous Taxa [was: RE: new _Scleromochlus_ ref]
> In a message dated 9/22/99 12:50:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:
> > So, the way I see it, you have three options:
> > 1) Abandon PT.
> > 2) Make up your own rules.
> OK, who is in charge of making and upholding the rules here?
> I've been salving my conscience by reminding myself that nothing is truly
> in stone as yet, and there might still be the possibility of someone
> through and clearing up the mess that PT has evolved into (in certain
> instances, of course).
> Should I just go ahead and kill myself?
> > 3) Try to make the best of the situation. Maybe it does make sense
> > the "true crocodyles" rose from among the "false crocodiles". It may
> > sinful for a cladist to say this, but does *everything* have to be an
> > exclusive dichotomy?
> Nobody has a problem with crocodiles "rising" from "false crocodiles"; the
> whole point of PT is that under that system, the true crocodiles ARE
> --Nick P.