[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))




Given the kind of prowess on this list, my lack thereof, and the depth
and complexity of their case, I'm afraid I'd make a sad mess of Webster
and Goodwin's arguments (which for the record I find impressive), and
I'm going to hold off for now.

I did, though, want to mention to anyone interested that there are still
people bright and sophisticated enough to be published by Cambridge (and
not just peddlers of new age fluff, creationism, etc.) who argue for a
form of essentialism in biology, though not the kind characterized--or
caricatured--by Mayr.

If anyone is interested, contact me off list and I'll send you a few
excerpts that might give more of a sense of what they are saying.

Carl Ramm
carl@dondwiggins.com
 
 

>> and that in fact the whole process of taxonomy can't get off the 
>> ground without them so doing.

>Isn't that the point? Under some definitions of "taxonomy",
phylogenetic nomenclature makes taxonomy _superfluous_ by uncoupling
nomenclature from taxonomy/classification.