[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)

To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Subject: Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
From: John Conway <john.a.conway@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:43:30 +0100
Cc: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
In-reply-to: <009a01c7fb07$69dfb580$0300a8c0@LENOVO>
References: <481153.45193.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <008a01c7fafe$1463a3e0$0300a8c0@LENOVO> <009a01c7fb07$69dfb580$0300a8c0@LENOVO>
Reply-to: john.a.conway@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

David Marjanovic wrote:

Philosophical arguments have been made about this point (before phylogenetic nomenclature came along, at least). One suggestion was to regard secondary absence as a special kind of presence, so that snakes can still be regarded as tetrapods...


How to know when your philosophising has gone wrong:

"... absence [is a] kind of presence"

Oops.

--
John Conway
Palaeontography: http://palaeo.jconway.co.uk

References:
- Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
  - From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
- Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
- Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Presentation
Next by Date: Re: Presentation
Previous by thread: Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
Next by thread: Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
Indexes: