[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> >> >Dinosauria has been everything from a suborder (original
> >> >to a class. But why would the mere fact that his sort of thing goes
> >> >a lot excuse it?
> >> Why would the mere fact that it goes on, condemn it?
> >It doesn't. What condemns it is that it's meaningless.
> if you say "monotreme"/"monotrema", I know you're talking about a mammal
> that lays eggs rather than having live birth.
But only from the parochial view of the Neogene.
Whereas if we use the view from the Cambrian or the Cambiferous(sp), there's
no such problem. ;)
Is it "parochial" because its human? Exactly how much do we want to
divorce science from people?
(after all, we don't want people thinking that science - specifically
classification - is something only relevant to long-bearded men in ivory
We honestly don't know which of the many diverse Mesozoic and Paleogene
lineages of mammals (allotheres, eutriconodonts, docodonts, etc., etc.)
were egg-laying mammals but not monotremes (i.e., not part
Tempting as it would be to therefore ask "then what good is a cladogram when
the relationships are uncertain", I won't. I'll just say that if they're
not monotremes, fine, then we don't call them monotremes....we don't throw
the baby out with the bathwater just because the baby wet the water.
PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows