[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: the definition of Reptilia
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