[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>> ranks like
>> "Order", "Family", etc. are not necessary (or, IMHO,
> If they are used to denote major shifts in ecological
> niche/ecomorphology, they are not arbitrary and
> actually quite useful -
I disagree; IMHO, ranks are both not necessary and not useful. Irrespective of
how you choose to define these "shifts", such "major shifts in ecological
niche/ecomorphology" do not occur overnight, so what do you do with the
transitional taxa? We're back to pointless typological arguments about why
_Archaeopteryx_ belongs in "Class Aves" with modern birds, whereas dinosaurs
belong in "Class Reptilia" with the turtles and snakes. And if _Archaeopteryx_
is put in "Class Aves", why not _Microraptor_ too; or _Velociraptor_, or
_Oviraptor_,.... and so on. All very silly, and utterly useless.
> as they will then also denote
> a major shift in *how* evolution acts upon a lineage.
That's natural selection (presumably). I get what you mean, but evolution is a
process, not an action.
More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.