[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: An odd paper request
Check out the argumentation at page 519 (Appendix 1)
I get the impression Dzik first argues against ichnotaxonomy and then simply
reinvents it. Sure, his approach is less phenetic and more phylogenetic than
traditional ichnotaxonomy as far as I can tell, and his point that
graptolites could be interpreted as trace fossils -- as "works of animals"
just like a nest or a burrow -- is actually good, but, if it became more
widespread, I think it would lead to the situation that paleobotany and
(neo-!) mycology have with form genera, and that situation is not desirable
I haven't read enough of the paper to tell if it requires the assumptions
that the fossil record _and_ our knowledge of it are nearly complete...
though stratophenetics does, and Dzik is, as far as I know, the world's
leading proponent of stratophenetics... (Stratophenetics is, if I've
understood it correctly, an attempt to take the old approach of "just
seeing" phylogeny in the fossil record and make it quantifiable.)