[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:24:50AM -0400, Dinogeorge@aol.com scripsit:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 1:13:03 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
> << Linnean taxonomy is actively wrong, though; it's based on frankly
> creationist assumptions. (Could hardly have been otherwise, considering
> when it got started.) >>
> These have since been discarded, of course.
What's a class, in quantifiable, testable terms?
That reliance on the contents of specific heads, most commonly mentioned
hereabouts in genericonometer jokes, is one of the creationist
> For a nice recent account of Linnean versus cladistic classifications,
> see Mayr & Bock, 2002, "Classifications and other ordering systems," J
> Zool Syst Evol Research 40: 169-194.
I'll see if the library has that.
firstname.lastname@example.org | Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen,
| ond thonne gedhencan he we thider cumen.
| -- The Seafarer, ll. 117-118.