[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: correct this "definition"
> > or would we re-define? (Of course, if Phylocode were enabled, we
> > couldn't).
> Yes, we could, under the latest draft:
> "15.11. An unrestricted emendation (see Art. 15.8) is intended to
> preserve the application of a particular name in terms of the
> conceptualization of the clade to which it refers.
Wow, this code must be written by lawyers (without the context of our
discussion, I could have read this 10 times without understanding
it...) But good to see that this is now possible.
> That'd certainly be an interesting area to go into, but would the full
> history of the name be appropriate for a general talk on dinosaurs?
However you do it, I think it is important to clear up the
misconception that anythign big and extinct is a dinosaur. To do so, I
think it is not sufficient to just say "dinosaurs are defined as
such-and-such" without at least giving an idea *why* they are defined
this way. Otherwise, people will just say "Typically for scientists -
they like to make up definitions that don't agree with common sense."
> suppose you could say the original diagnosis partly holds up and
> partly doesn't, and that's why the definition is based on the original
> composition, not the original diagnosis. But I dunno who'd still be
> awake after that. :)
I agree, that's too technically expressed to be interesting.
Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin BÃker
Institut fÃr Werkstoffe
Technische UniversitÃt Braunschweig
Langer Kamp 8