[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Russia and phylogenetics was Re: Ceratonykus braincase described

 Just look at Kurochkin's or Alifanov's bibliographies- they have all
 the new papers. I'm thinking something more along the line of
 national pride and/or a conservatism that sees the rest of the world
 as misled.

Ah... they have all the new papers, but not the textbooks or the foundational papers, so the new papers (which assume the methods instead of explaining them anew) are simply incomprehensible to them.

I remember reading a paper about cladistics and nomenclature by the late great Wolf-Ernst Reif in Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie (Abhandlungen), I think from 2005. Written in English, clearly by the author himself (judging from the mistakes), it cited two very recent papers by de Queiroz, one by Sereno (I think), and no others about phylogenetic nomenclature. Evidently, Reif didn't know anything else about phylogenetic nomenclature, because he went on to drastically misunderstand it. He didn't even grasp that de Queiroz and Sereno were using one system of phylogenetic nomenclature, not two! He lacked the basics. Therefore he reinvented the wheel in the same paper and forgot to take the corners off. His system of phylogenetic nomenclature with special consideration of how to name ancestors and without phylogenetic definitions has never been used, AFAIK.

If you don't understand the basics, you don't need national pride to _become_ conservative and regard the incomprehensible newfangled works of the rest of the world as misled at worst and unusable at best.