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

Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble



On 17 April 2012 13:48, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
>>  It was not my intention to be hostile, so the tone of the response I
>>  received from Mike seems particularly odd.
>
> But apparently it wasn't sent to the list (I haven't received it), so
> there's probably no point in discussing it here...

I assume Jaime was referring to the below, since it's all I've sent
(and, yes, to the list):

I don't really understand what Jaime is saying about the tone.

-- Mike.




--- quoted from earlier message ---
What are you talking about?  NO-ONE in this discussion has claimed
that genera (or for that matter) are "real".  The issue is entirely
about nomenclature.  Because we inherited our system from
neontologists for whom a binomial is a useful convention, we
palaeontologists also use it even though it's not useful for us.  The
near-universal use of monospecific genera
is a simple, pragmatic solution -- that's all.

No-one is arguing about what genera "really" are.  Because they're not
"really" anything.  They're just names on characteristic specimens.