[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:37:54 +0000 john hunt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Thanks for the primers on cladistics - I am sure it will be very
> As a few other participants have observed, my question regarding
> dogs was in relation to dinosaur cladistics, so one would have to
> exclude DNA studies as these are not available for non avian
Currently, practitioners of morphology-based cladistics and gene-based
cladistics only *pretend* that their respective data are in some way
related, and for the last decade each side has been giving the other side
a grudgingly respectful bow of the head. On the surface it appears to be
sort of a gentleman's agreement not to humiliate the other side. But in
the next 10-20 years, and with a greater understanding of various
organisms' genomes and how genes are expressed (and how these same gene
expressions can be repressed), I predict that the gloves will come off
and a greater rift will develop between the two subdisciplines.
While sipping tea, one can only keep one's pinky in the air for only so
long before the urge to tip over tables and throw drinks becomes
The above opinion is only my 0.004 Euros, standard disclaimers apply, I'm
taking no side, your mileage may vary, yada yada yada.....
So, the question remains: Morphologically, is a pug skeleton of the same
species as a whippet skeleton? Is it even in the same genus?
Sorry for the OT post. Now let's get back to discussing pterosaurs! ;-)
<pb> (feelin' spunky tonight....way too much caffeine)