[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: More instability? (*Eudibamus*)
I've said my peice on this subject, and brought *Eudibamus* up only
becuase a certain hypothesis was rejected on the basis of a
marginally-presertved single skeleton of a reptile or reptile-like
form. Also, the use of certain vulger terms for groups of taxa as being
enforced in either cladistic or so-called "eclectic" paradigms cannot
be allowed: its the method of science that determines the public
opinion, not the other way around, for surely we are not so dense as to
assume that once a little fat man in a cleric's robs five hundred years
ago setting down on paper his opinion on what the word "reptile" should
mean is not the basis for our scientific interpretation of a reptile in
either the broadest sense, or the strictest sense, or anywhere in
between. I guess here the greatest difficulty is in the idea of what a
"reptile" _should be_, not _is_.
And please, any agression someone may percieve is not meant, and I
dpon't feel any one is "dense" nor do I assume a certain historic
validity to my statement.
Yes, Regis, I _would_ like this to be my final answer....!
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.