[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Anthony Docimo writes:
> > > >> >Dinosauria has been everything from a suborder (original
> > > >> >designation)
> > > >> >to a class. But why would the mere fact that his sort of thing goes
> > > >> >on
> > > >> >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. ;)
What? No! The view from _any_ absurdly short slice of geological
time will be parochial.
I honestly don't know any more whether you're honestly asking
questions because you want to know the answers, or whether you're just
> Is it "parochial" because its human?
> >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
> >of Monotremata).
> Tempting as it would be to therefore ask "then what good is a
> cladogram when the relationships are uncertain", I won't.
But I will answer the question anyway. The good of a cladogram is
that it illustrates a phylogenetic hypothesis. If we never said
anything in science until we were certain that we right, then
... well, the publication queues would be a lot shorter.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep"
-- Clinton aide George Stephanopolous.