Re: smallest ANCIENT non-bird dinosaur - was what I was asking

[Adam <adam@crowlspace.com>]

T. Michael Keesey wrote:
Hi Mike

Well that makes sense. And I agree with you about *Pakicetus* not being 
"a whale" but only in the sense that *Hyracotherium* is not a horse. I'm 
just not sure it's all that useful to NOT call them "whales" and 
"horses" unless kludgey names like "proto-whale" and "proto-horse" are 
more meaningful.

Mind you educating people that fossils don't automatically leave 
descendents is a delicate matter too, especially when it's a fossil 
group close to a lineage of interest. Saying all fossil hominids were 
sister groups to the line that led to *Homo sapiens*, while strictly all 
you can say logically, is kind of disappointing to most people with an 
interest in the past. I've had interesting reactions when trying to 
explain how 10% of all the people alive 1,000 years ago became ancestors 
to everyone alive, and 90% didn't. That kind of shocks people. Natural 
selection via differential reproductive success starts making sense then.

Adam

> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Adam <adam@crowlspace.com> wrote:
>  
>
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > What difference does "stem-" make?
> >    
>
> A stem-X is not an X. But is more closely related to X than to
> anything else alive.
>
>  
>
> > Especially when communicating the reality of evolution to the sceptical public, for example.
> >    
>
> Calling this thing a "whale" stretches credibility:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pakicetus.gif
>
> A "whale relative", yes. A "whale", no.
>
> Besides, stem groups are a reality of evolution.
>