[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: maniraptor taxonomy, etc.
In a message dated 7/19/00 10:00:58 PM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< Why? What happens if when we find a primitive "mammal" or group of
mammals that seems to have three sort of but not quite ear ossicles? Are
they "kind of" mammals? How fully adapted do the bones have to be for
hearing before it becomes a mammal? What happens when you get a fossil form
where the condition of the ear ossicles is debatable? Did taxonomists using
morphological defintions really agree any better about the membership of
groups before phylogenetic taxonomists came along? >>
Allow me to point out that >precisely< this problem afflicts cladistic
analysis and phylogenetic taxonomy: How should a particular character be
scored? Is the length of the humerus 25% or 27% of the length of the femur?
Measured which way? Is this lump really a trochanter or is it some neomorph?
What exactly is "winglike" about this shape? How small must the fourth side
be before a shape is triangular rather than tetragonal? Are there three ear
ossicles here or are there not? What is "reduced"? What is "enlarged"? When
does an "inflated" basisphenoid become an "inflated" parasphenoid? And so on
and on. This is not an argument against using morphology merely to demarcate
taxa, it is an argument against using morphology in cladistic analysis period.