[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> > > > > Is it "parochial" because its human?
> > > >
> > > >No.
> > >
> > > ah.
> > >
> > > then *why* is it parochial? that's what I don't understand.
> >Let me quote myself (or you can just scroll up 25 lines :-) The
> >view from _any_ absurdly short slice of geological time will be
> >parochial. As palaeontologists, our task is to look at the
> >_whole_ of time
> I've no problem with that....my concern is that people interested
> in paleontology *might be frightened away* by the idea of having to
> phrase everything in cladograms.
I really don't know what you mean by "phrase everything in
what I mean, basically, is to write a cladogram, then say it in sentance
form. repeat, only with another group of animals, and without writing it
All we're saying is that the nice, clear division of life into widely
separated groups that we see now is caused by ignoring the previous
half-billion years. Is that "phrasing everything in cladograms"?
so they're not widely-separated after all...does that make rubbish of the
classification scheme? imho, no it doesn't. its part of the
commonly-accepted system of names, and can be worked with, rather than
simply abandoning it.
*Lagosuchus* isn't a relative of the rabbit, but nobody's suggesting it be
renamed. (at least, not that I know)
> >(well, the range of time that encompasses the organisms we study,
> >anyway. Personally I can live without the Miocene.)
> *makes a note to eliminate the Miocene*
Well, that's just for me. For some reason, there are plenty of people
out there who find the Miocene wholly tolerable.
really? wonder why.
See what you?re getting into?before you go there