[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur subspecies names?
Mike Wall (email@example.com) wrote:
<Whether C.c.corone and C.c.cornix are different species or not (which IMHO
they're not), they
certainly wouldn't be differentiable as fossils. For Dendroica et al, also read
the old world
warblers _Phylloscopus_, _Locustella_, _Acrocephalus_, etc. To be honest I
doubt if many modern
genera of birds could be differentiated by skeletal features alone, so I do
wonder about some of
the claims being made for the fossil record.>
Hence the paradox of the genus definition. The neontologists insist the
paleontologists must see
the genus by neontological means (impossible, no genetic testing performable)
paleontologists insist the neontologists see the genus as a strict
morphological unit, therefore
dismission such evidence as nest construction, behavior, calls (there is
actually, in the form of the passeriform syrynx, etc.), plumage coloration and
pennate count in
the wings or tail.
But do either group have a monopoly over the other? No. Both cases work for
fields. It's a pity there's no overlap, though modern taxa do carry some
there's been a trend of mophology-based analyses, as well as molecular ones.
That they differ in
results somewhat depending on the specificity of the analysis (but typically
only in some areas,
they hold true in general between the two of them for a single clade) indicates
that both will
yield different results no matter what. And certainly both have their faults. I
hold neither above
the other in relative "truth" offered.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.