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

Re: replying to pomposity




George,
Well in that case, although you don't care for the title of my book, you might actually find some of the contents to your liking.
----Cheers, Ken
P.S. I've got to get some sleep. The pomposity post obviously REALLY got me cranky. "Pompous" is about as far as I'll go. Other people can call them "frothing" or even "insane", but I won't go that far. I'm exhausted nevertheless. Been a long day.
*********************************************************
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: replying to pomposity
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:44:34 EDT

In a message dated 6/20/00 11:13:20 PM EST, kinman@hotmail.com writes:

<< And given the uncertainties of how these
groups are interrelated, it continues to make perfect sense to classify
Thecodont ancestors in a paraphyletic order rather than hanging out their in
classificatory limbo because the cladists can't decide where to put them.
There at least 28 families of thecodonts in this paraphyletic order, and the
ivory-tower cladists maybe let their paraphylophobia keep them from
recognizing it, but that is their problem, and the rest of world is getting
fed up with such pompous attitudes. >>


Funny thing is, I strongly agree with you with regard to admitting
paraphyletic taxa, defining them in terms of more inclusive clade minus less
inclusive clade(s). The cladists are way too dogmatic about their taxonomic
conventions, almost rabid ("frothing cladists" is how Alan Charig once
described them). Define a new taxon when an evolutionary novelty appears in a
lineage, not at some weird cladistic branch point.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com