[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
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.