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

Re: Archaeopteryx



George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:

<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?>

  This is not a matter of incorrect useage of a system; the system is
worthless if not typological. It is redundant. To use it otherwise would
be to treat initially treated ranked taxa and newly treated ranked taxa
asbeing a one heavy group of paraphyletic messes. Its not Class Reptilia
giving rise to Class Aves, it's Parvorder Coelurosauria giving rise to
Class Aves, where the original and defined structure of these ranks would
ordinarily force the rank names to change. Ya would like to keep the rank
names for what, historical and no scientific value? If its so arbitrary,
one can do without ranks and use just taxon names. There are essentially
only two types of taxon anyway, finite names for organisms exclusively
(here, "species") and taxa naming groups containing species, and in any
variable or construction within.

  Cheers,

=====
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.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com