Re: CRANIAL-CAUDAL vs ANTERO-POSTERIOR

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Philidor,
    That's an interesting point.  The metric system is relatively easy to 
understand and is accepted in many countries throughtout the world, and yet 
it is being resisted here in the U.S.
     On the contrary, the phylogenetic system is not particularly easy for 
laymen to understand (it goes against the grain of how human brains 
classify), and it not widely accepted in any country of the world.  If 
scientists can't get the metric system adopted here after decades of trying, 
their attempts with the phylogenetic system (which is even controversial in 
the scientific community) is going to be far more difficult.
     Seems like we have adopted a middle ground approach to weights and 
measures, and to my mind that is far more confusing than a middle ground 
approach to biological classification (and recent posts about metrics 
reinforce that view).  Perhaps cladists will someday flock to a 
cladisto-eclectic system once they realize a purely phylogenetic system is 
not going to be accepted.  It would certainly be better than traditional 
eclecticism, wouldn't it.  Although they seem pretty confident that 
education of young people will do the trick, if the education of young 
people in the metric system over the last few decades is any indication, the 
far more difficult task of phylogenetic "conversion" is going to take many 
decades (if it ever happens at all).  Of course, I think even most cladists 
will begin realizing the downside of pure cladifications long before that.
                         --------Ken
*******************************************************
Philidor wrote:
> Official declarations are not necessarily the final word.  Think phylocode 
> might follow the same pattern as the metric conversion if it contradicts 
> 'popular' biological concepts?

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com