[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: ...and how ranks don't work was Re: Sauropodz r kewl
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:28:37 +0200
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: ...and how ranks don't work was Re: Sauropodz r kewl
> Am 19.04.2012 15:27, schrieb Anthony Docimo:
> > > Because we think in trees.
> > Danged primate ancestry. :)
> No, I was trying to talk about the need for tree-thinking,
aaaand the joke dies alone in the rain.
> > It's like if we held conversations in German or in Damin - we would
> > each know what the other is saying and meaning...but if we want to
> > tell anyone else about what we're talking about and working on, we
> > would have to use a language they know: ranks.
> The general public doesn't know ranks any better than the distinction
> between lizards and salamanders. You'll need to show (or explain) a tree
> to them anyway.
until trees get something as catchy as "King Philip can order five great
snakes" (or the astronomical equivilent, "oh be a fine girl, kiss me"), the
public may not catch on as fast as you like.
> > > Only because the fossil record isn't any better. If it were, we'd
> > > run into the problem I just explained using birds.
> > Who suggested birds should get their own phyla? I'm just agreeing
> > that most phyla are roughly Cambrian in age.
> I'm saying if we call all taxa of Cambrian age phyla, we'll have phyla
> within phyla within phyla within phyla within phyla.
wait...did you mean that each Cambrian "species" gets its own phylum? that
wasn't what I meant, and I apologize if you thought it was where i was aiming