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

Re: CRANIAL-CAUDAL vs ANTERO-POSTERIOR



Philidor,
That's an interesting point. The metric system is relatively easy to understand and is accepted in many countries throughtout the world, and yet it is being resisted here in the U.S.
On the contrary, the phylogenetic system is not particularly easy for laymen to understand (it goes against the grain of how human brains classify), and it not widely accepted in any country of the world. If scientists can't get the metric system adopted here after decades of trying, their attempts with the phylogenetic system (which is even controversial in the scientific community) is going to be far more difficult.
Seems like we have adopted a middle ground approach to weights and measures, and to my mind that is far more confusing than a middle ground approach to biological classification (and recent posts about metrics reinforce that view). Perhaps cladists will someday flock to a cladisto-eclectic system once they realize a purely phylogenetic system is not going to be accepted. It would certainly be better than traditional eclecticism, wouldn't it. Although they seem pretty confident that education of young people will do the trick, if the education of young people in the metric system over the last few decades is any indication, the far more difficult task of phylogenetic "conversion" is going to take many decades (if it ever happens at all). Of course, I think even most cladists will begin realizing the downside of pure cladifications long before that.
--------Ken
*******************************************************
Philidor wrote:
Official declarations are not necessarily the final word. Think phylocode might follow the same pattern as the metric conversion if it contradicts 'popular' biological concepts?


_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com