[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 at all.

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.)