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

Re : Re: Archaeopteryx



Dr Oliver Rauhut rightfully wrote:

>Another aspect of this dilemma is our communication with the general public,
>and this is a very serious matter! Non-Biologists conceptualize animals by
>their "looks" and if we are now every five years trying to tell them that what
>they should regard as birds suddenly includes crocodiles, or does not
>include chicken (if, on the basis of a definition of birds on the basis of
>palaeognaths and Passer, Galloanseres are found outside this clade in an 
>analysis),
>they will certainly not be able (and not be willing) to follow these ideas.
>HOWEVER, THIS IS THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR OUR RESEARCH!! If we
>loose touch with them, we might face problems to continue our work. I know
>that this is no argument for the philosophically correct taxonomists, but it is
>an argument for those working in the field and trying to get their research
>funded! Remember that names are a means to communicate, nothing more!!

I couldn't say better : we (lay persons) are sometimes lost in this semantic 
debate. It is good to remember that science is not just for scientists. One of 
its main aims is to propagate the knowledge to others...
Cheers,
Jean-Michel