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

Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?

To: tijawi@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
From: Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:31:53 -0500
Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu, mike@indexdata.com
In-reply-to: <985054.96264.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <985054.96264.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: npharris@umich.edu
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Quoting Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>:

In short, paraphyletic groups could so easily fall prey totypological thinking.

I guess I would go further and say that I think paraphyletic groupsare both a product and an enabler of typological thinking. I justdon't see the utility in formally recognizing them.


--
****************************************************************
Nicholas J. Pharris

References:
- Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Next by Date: Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Previous by thread: RE: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Next by thread: Paraphyla nomenclature was Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Indexes: