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

RE: Monotremes




> > > >> >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.

ah. I thought it was parochial because it was from the perspective of the Neogene. (whereas the Cambrian, for example, is before the arrival of *any* sort of vaguely mammalian things)


sort of the anthropogenic view of the universe - we know the universe can support life because we're here.

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
trolling.

I want to know.

 > Is it "parochial" because its human?

No.

ah.

then *why* is it parochial?  that's what I don't understand.


> >We honestly don't know which of the many diverse Mesozoic and Paleogene
> >extinct
> >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.

one could say the same about scientific names. and, like a cladogram, if the hypothesis is wrong, that doesn't discredit the naming procedure...we just move the name to the group under which we (in a new hypothesis) think it belongs to.


_________________________________________________________________
See what you?re getting into?before you go there http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507