Re: definition of dinosaur

[mickey@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey P. Rowe)]

George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) claims:

> Indeed. Now cladists can give three different names to essentially the same
> taxon. This is supposed to be beneficial to taxonomy.

So, for those of us who are s-l-o-w, would you please clarify
something?  First you say that cladistic taxonomy is bad because:

] The only names allowed in cladistic taxonomies are those attached to
] the nodes of a cladogram. The terminal nodes are the species (or
] monophyletic groups collapsed into single nodes), the branch nodes
] are the supraspecific taxa. This is inadequate because (1) the True
] Phylogeny is not necessarily modeled by a cladogram ...

When I point out that your premise is wrong, you say that cladistic
taxonomy is bad because it allows what you first said it should?  I
don't know about everybody else on the list, but I try to form my
opinions after learning some facts, not create arguments to support my
opinions irrespective of the facts.  Personally I think any
responsible person would do the same.

-- 
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)