Re: Birds and pornography

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

Jaime observed:
<Carl von Linné may have been smart, but his framework is typological and
ultimately suits only those who find it easier to "feel" their way through
phylogeny instead of
those who chose to "think" through it by asking that most perilous of
evolutionary questions:

  What the Hell is a Class?>

You're starting from the assumption that the most important thing a
classification does is respond to and teach about a view of evolutionary
change.
What if the first goal is communication?
If you were reporting basic weather information to people, would you refuse
to use the words 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' because they necessarily imply an
erroneous view about whether the Earth or the Sun is at the center of the
system?
Sunrise and Sunset speak to mechanism.  A classification system for animals
does not by necessity include an inherent evolutionary mechanism.  It can be
solely descriptive.

By the way, it is also possible to argue that cladistic naming approaches
necessarily imply gradualism, as opposed to other evolutionary mechanisms.
It is also possible to argue the contrary, but my point is that a
classification system used for anything other than communication opens up a
shelf of cans of worms.
Let the worms stay on the ground to be trampled by the travelers on
horseback.