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

Re: Archaeopteryx



In a message dated 6/17/03 7:21:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

<< Because unlike organization and use of formations, ranks have been used
 to decide validity of relationship (closest broad case example, Aves as a
 Class cannot be contained by Reptilia, also a Class, so therefore Aves
 cannot be descended from within Reptilia; an even broader, distant example
 can be the assumption of a ranked identity of Bacteria, as a Kingdom,
 which as it turns out contains basal Animalia, Plantae, etc.) rather than
 relationship be used for deciding assignment of rank. Ranks at this point
 become redundant and likely as just of historical value. They can be done
 without -- have been done without -- without the problems associated with
 deciding which rank Aves should be, or Dinosauria, etc. >>

Just because a system has been used incorrectly doesn't invalidate the system 
itself. We can simply learn how to use it correctly. For example, one class 
(Reptilia) can give rise to another (Aves); why not? Descent doesn't mean you 
>must< include the descendant group within the ancestral group. And as far as 
rank goes, it's purely arbitrary, so why not simply assign the groups their 
ranks forevermore and be done with it?