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

Re: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))



Tom Holtz wrote: >>>But also, to be fair, "fish" is an ancient English word far predating the science of biology, while "dinosaur" is a term fromtechnical literature, dates only to 1842, and created specifically for use in scientific contexts.<<<

That is true, of course, and Mike Keesey has made the same point before about this and "lizards". Still, while defensible on nomenclatural grounds, I think it's a bad habbit to use any traditional paraphyletic grouping in education or general usage, since it only makes it harder for students, museum visitors, janitors, etc., to wrap their brains around the practice of evolutionary classification. People ARE apes, snakes ARE lizards, whales ARE mammals, and birds ARE dinosaurs.

What is so hard about accepting that tetratpods are abberrant, primatively land-going sarcopterygian fish?

The point in doing so is not to be cutesy. It is to drive home the
really signficant imporant messages that EVOLUTIONARY THINKING IS IMPORTANT and that TYPOLOGICAL THINKING SHOULD BE LEFT DYING IN THE DUST."

Amen.

Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(800) 455-3466 ext. 230
Cell: (307) 921-8333

www.skeletaldrawing.com

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.