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

Re: AMARGASAURUS (& taxonomy generally)



Ken Kinman wrote:

<If I understand correctly what you are saying, a way
has already been found to "successfully distinguish
and define these qualities"...>

  Perhaps distinguish. That's actually the easy part,
and is a lot to do with why cladistics has caught on
so well. In groups of organizisms where the forms
mimic and assume characteristics of each other, such
as bacteria and genes, this is a lot more difficult. A
system for grouping genes and bacteria will not work
the same because so-called higher organisms will not
have the mutability that bacteria and such show.

  Defining things requires concrete definitions to
cease confusion. The fact that listing taxa and
placing markers beside them suggests that a definition
is ambiguous, rather than considered true, based on a
ambivalence on whether or not a group might exist.

=====
Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/