RE: TRUTH AND "TRUTH"

["Tracy Ford" <tlford@ix.netcom.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Matthew Troutman
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 5:20 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: TRUTH AND "TRUTH"


Chris Brochu wrote:

<<1.  We stopped worrying about Linnean ranks because they have no
biological reality and can seriously mislead people.  They were made for a
world view that did not account for evolution.  Good riddance to them.>>

and Tom Holtz (looking forward to the Gaia paper) also wrote:

<<We could take the typological approach and say "aha, this specimen does
not fit the features required to be a carnosaur, so it has to be in some
other category".  Or we can take an evolutionary approach, sort out the
distribution to the best of our current ability, and see what results (in
this case, that tridactyly evolves independantly in derived carnosaurs and
in coelurosaurs).

If your goal is recovering the history of life, then I recommend using a
repeatable scientific methodology.  If your goal is nice, neat lists of
names, then typology is fine.>>

Why? Alls it boils down to is semantics. Either used by the Linnaean System
or the Cladistic system. I have no problem using the Linnaean system an I
don't see how it does not take into account evolution. This means that
Huene, Nopcsa, Ostrom, didn't believe in evolution because they USED the
Linnaean system? This doesn't make sense. You can easily use both Linnaean
higherarchy with cladagrams and not use new 'node' names. I know because
I've done it.
Tracy