[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Classification: A Definition
On 5/22/07, Graydon <email@example.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:53:56PM +0100, Mike Taylor scripsit:
> Graydon writes:
> > > No, no, _alpha_ taxonomy, the naming of species and genera.
> > > Those we will never get rid of.
> > I am uncertain of that.
> > Specifically in paleontology, it's unclear that species level
> > resolution is possible at all, never mind generally, so the
> > question ought to be pretty much moot.
> Species or genus -- doesn't matter which, we need one of them.
We need a label that people can remember and say for a specimen or a
group of specimens. We don't need to attach a meaning beyond "this
non-empty list of specimens" to the label, though. I think it could be
argued that in paleontology one *should not* go beyond that, because
there isn't enough information to do it.
When you say a list, do you mean a literal list, or a potential one? I
mean, it may be possible and worthwhile to list every brachiosaur
specimen, perhaps every dinosaur one, but it certainly won't when we
get to fossil bivalves or diatoms.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?