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

Re: Some thoughts on cladistics



<So, what I would like to say is that cladistics and PT is mandatory to use
when talking about evolutionary processes, but it may nevertheless be very
useful to have some other ways of grouping things, and indeed, we all do
so anyway.>

I liked your color analogy.
The two nomenclatures approach is reasonable, but does run into a problem in
biology classrooms.  One approach or the other would have to be central.

Imagine a teacher ending a class:
"For the next chapter, we will have to assume that there is no difference
among lizards, dinosaurs, and birds sufficient to require separate
overarching names for the groups.  Oh, and we will have to say 'dinosaurs'
when we mean birds, and 'non-bird dinos' when we mean dinosaurs...
Before you go, please pick up your emendations to the text books.  As usual,
they're on self-stick paper at the front of the room.  And yes, we are
changing pages 322-379 inclusive.  Professor Zoubgrund's new idea has
carried all before it.  His inclusion of coconut custard as a species has
resolved a number of ambiguities, and rearranged our entire understanding of
the relationships of 432 animals.
I am particularly intrigued by the animal found to be more primitive than
itself.  As Zaphod Beeblebrox correctly observed in a comparable situation,
'Don't ask!'"

Well, it could work, I suppose.

;-)  Tim, any chance you could leave that priestess alone and come on back
here?