Re: the definition of Reptilia

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Brian,
    I think we are indeed largely in agreement.  I am certainly not in 
favor of deceiving the public with an alternative story that is inconsistent 
with scientific understanding.  But the primary schism exists within the 
scientific community itself, not between that community and the public at 
large.
    The thing that particularly bothers me is that the comments of some 
strict cladists indicates that they think traditionalists are recognizing 
paraphyletic groups (like Reptilia) to appease non-scientists (as though we 
were stooping down to a muddled, lowest common denominator).  That is 
certainly *not* the case.
    Traditional classifications certainly lack a needed element of 
cladistic precision, but it has always been my belief that there is more 
than one way to achieve that goal.  Even in those groups where strict 
cladism has worked reasonably well (vertebrates in particular), it is 
already showing its drawbacks, and phylocode is beginning to scare a lot of 
traditionalists out of their complaceny.  Many biologists do not like the 
direction in which strict cladism is going, with increasingly arcane, 
micromanaged, and "tortured" (to use Peter Dodson's term) language.
    Until the scientists themselves settle this long cladisto-eclectic war, 
the public will largely stick with the less arcane traditional approach.  
Cladistic reforms are definitely in order, and I have introduced my own 
moderate approach for doing that.  Strict cladism, on other hand, is taking 
sort of an all or nothing approach which seems very likely to backfire on 
them, and all because of a long-held belief that all formal paraphyletic 
taxa must be destroyed.
    That's where the real danger lies in my opinion.  It's the schism 
within the scientific community which is causing the real harm, at least far 
more harm than any "town-gown" problems between the scientific community and 
the public.  The BAD vs. BAND battle is just one manifestation of this 
scientific schism, and if expanding Aves somewhat could help break that 
deadlock, then it's just one more reason to finally let go of the out-dated 
notion of Archaeopteryx being the first bird.  However, I think the 
expansion of Aves should not go beyond Coelurosauria.  Ornithischians or 
sauropods as birds would not be widely accepted by either the scientific 
community or the public.
          ---------- Ken Kinman

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp