[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Classification: A Definition
> > You _could_ argue that TOKOTs should be abolished completely and
> > all biology done in terms of specimens and clades only. But that
> > is never going to happen and to be honest I wouldn't want it to.
> > I like the convenient of TOKOTs. I prefer the name
> > "Brachiosaurus" to the specimen number FMNH P 25017.
> How would defining "Brachiosaurus" *as* "FMNH P 25017" cause
> difficulty or information loss?
Woah! Dude! Radical!
I think I have to go and lie down. I am not ready for this :-)
> That is pretty much the situation we've got with fossils, isn't it?
> No population, no genes, no real prospect of being able to define
> things in terms of that-which-is-being-selected-upon, so what is
> there as facts are the specimens.
> Formalizing the working nickname as the human-usage name, which is
> in turn what the actual name is called, doesn't strike me as a bad
I see where you're coming from, but do you really want to take away
the ability of field-workers in Utah to say "we've found a new
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I don't see disagreement as a bad thing. It forces me to defend
my position. If I cannot do it satisfactorily, my idea hits
the bin. I see this as good" -- Alan Kent.