|
From a review by W. Ford Doolittle of the book by
Colin Tudge, Sunday (6/18) New York Times Book Review Section:
Either we call birds reptiles or
we cannot have such a group as the class Reptilia, because it spawned creatures (in fact two whole classes, Aves and Mammalia) that we don't call reptiles. Disputes about this still rage in the academic literature because there are still those who hold that similarity, if strong enough, should trump relationship, that classification is not just about genealogy. Tudge explicates the cladist doctrine quite clearly, while personally adopting an intermediate position (suggesting that we simultaneously recognize a Reptilia that includes mammals and birds and a ''Reptilia'' that doesn't, and would be what most people mean by reptiles). This is the kind of casual ambiguity with which most of us are already comfortable -- without the typographical trickery. I doubt that Tudge's terminology will be embraced by professionals. and
It is the application of molecular
approaches, as much as cladism, that has transformed the classification business. Modern museums of natural history spend as much on DNA sequencing machines as on fossils, and people who can recognize animals and plants by sight alone are, sadly, ever rarer and less in demand. I'd be sorry to think the second statement is
true. Should I?
|