Re: labels are imaginary

["Nicholas J. Pharris" <pharrinj@PLU.edu>]

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 96-02-05 21:31:19 EST, pharrinj@PLU.edu (Nicholas J.
> Pharris) writes:
> 
> >Sorry, Mr. Olshevsky.  Thank you for playing.
> >
> >Sheer numbers of species have little to do with real disparity.  IMHO 
> >there is a heck of a lot more disparity between _Deinonychus_ and 
> >_Diplodocus_ than between _Deinonychus_ and _Dromaius_.
> 
> There's a heck of a lot less disparity between _Diplodocus_ and
> _Titanosaurus_ than there is between _Deinonychus_ and _Dromaius_, or between
> _Deinonychus_ and a hummingbird. That's the important disparity here. The
> disparity between _Diplodocus_ and _Deinonychus_ is completely irrelevant.

I never tried to say that diplodocids should have a class separate from 
the rest of the dinosaurs, which seems to be what you are trying to refute.

The disparity between _Diplodocus_ and _Deinonychus_ is the operative 
concept here, if one is trying to make a case for classifying these 
animals together and separating them from the emu or the hummingbird.


Nick Pharris
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
(206)535-8204
PharriNJ@PLU.edu

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman