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


----- Original Message -----
From: "philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:32 AM

> The issue we're looking at is whether these additions communicate enough
> scientists that they should formulate a terminology separate from that
> by the public.

At some point that comes by itself. "The public" simply doesn't talk about
acoels or chaetognaths or gnathostomulids or *Trichoplax* or *Symbion* or
*Limnognathia*, to use living examples, nor about blastoids, cystoids,
eocrinoids, thalattosaurs, champsosaurs, proterochampsids bla bla bla. Yet
(paleo)zoologists need a precise system that enables them to talk about the
relationships of _all_ animals, common or obscure.

> Naming conventions are a form of communication, and not in
> themselves scientific analysis.

Yep, but they can greatly facilitate or hamper scientific analysis.