Re: GOULD ON FLIGHTLESS THEROPODS

["Matthew Troutman" <m_troutman@hotmail.com>]

I'm breaking Holtz's First Rule right now by commenting on a paper that I 
have not read yet, but life isn't worth living if it weren't for the 
mistakes :-).

<<I'm also troubled by Gould's discussion about problems with 'living
dinosaurs'. He says that we don't go round calling mammals living
_Dimetrodons_. This is hardly the same and, in fact, you could call
mammals living eupelycosaurs if you wanted to. [...]  Gould argues that we 
don't call poodles wolves. I disagree... dogs are
wolves and, if you're being pedantic you certainly ARE right in calling
your poodle a wolf.>>

I agree, it is neat conversation starter (or stopper) at the very least that 
deserves to be mined for its great grammatological (Derrida postmodernists 
shouldn't get their hopes up) potential.  :-)

<<As an aside, the article is historically interesting in that Gould 
recounts Greg Paul's argument about derivation of bird-like flightless 
theropods from flighted ancestors, yet without reference to Greg or to this 
hypothesis. In 1988 GSP suggested that a flightless descendant of an
_Archaeopteryx_-like ancestor would not be as strongly modified for
flight as advanced birds, would have big hand claws, long fingers etc
and would thus make a 'better' dinosaur than, say, a flightless
palaeognath. Gould presents an identical argument.>>

Interesting.  Who said that great minds think alike?

<<I don't know if this is just me being stupid, but I should like to say 
that the article is written in indecipherable riddles - it is absolutely 
stacked full of obscure references that went completely over my head. I've 
never really noticed this in Gould's writing before.>>

In my experience with Gould's writing, I can say that he does like to use a 
long metaphor, sometimes to silliness.  Anybody who has read the first 30 
some pages of _Full House_ can tell you that Gould can go a little overboard 
(baseball??).  Overall though, I like Gould's prose.  Why use a scientific 
argument when you can use a good allusion or metaphor?  I would say about 
half of them I have no idea what the hell he is talking about, but I'm the 
guy who watched _2001_ as a child, didn't understand the movie's ending one 
bit, and still loved it.  Basically, I'm a sucker for style.


Matt Troutman
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com