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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

"T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com> writes:

> Going the more normal route [as opposed to using a clade-based
approach] of organizing [museum] specimens by time period 
> is
> more stable. And of course helps to emphasize concepts like
> paleoecology and "deep time".

If done correctly, a time period-based display *also* conveys the concept
of the tree of life.  As long as "lower" animals are displayed alongside
"higher" animals (for each time period), and as long as it is emphasized
that *everything* has evolved from earlier times, then the message gets
across to the viewer.  Care must be taken to not give the viewer the
impression that the "lower" animals stopped evolving at some point in
geologic time.

I like museum displays that have geologic time boundaries superimposed
over phylogenetic trees.  It shows the public that evolution is complex,
bushy, and often non-linear.