Re: Science is CHANGING

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

Dear All,
     Even traditional eclectic classifications have been subject to change, 
although too slow even for my tastes.  The Kinman System makes it more 
malleable and useful in the rapidly changing scientific arena we have 
today-----BUT not as malleable and unstable as cladograms which can change 
from day to day, or from worker to worker.  We need *both* cladograms and 
classifications to answer different questions and meet the extremely varied 
needs of all scientists.
     Mike Keesey's dinosauricon is great, very detailed and useful for 
professional and serious amateur dinosaurologists, but it is a 
"cladification" (Ernst Mayr's term, not mine) and not a true classification 
in the minds of much of the rest of the world.
    Case in point----SNOWFL96@aol.com wrote:
> Hi, does anybody know where the camarasaurids fit ...  Were they a sister 
> group to the brachiosaurids?
Mike Keesey answered: _Camarasaurus_ is outside _Titanosauriformes_ (which 
could be defined as Clade(_Brachiosaurus_ + _Titanosaurus_)), but inside 
_Macronaria_ (Clade(_Saltasaurus_ <-- _Diplodocus_)).  It may form a clade 
with other basal macronarians, such as _Aragosaurus_ and _Lourinhasaurus_, 
which could be called _Camarasauridae_.

    EGAD, is that the kind of answer Snowfl96 was looking for?  Don't know 
for sure, but I think my more traditional classification answers this 
question more clearly (without all the details and strictly cladistic 
"legalese"-like technicalities).  Here is the relevant portion of my first 
preliminary saurischian classification (posted here on June 7th), with the 
five (broad) neosauropod families listed in the order that they may have 
split off cladistically:

6C  Euhelopodidae
 D  Diplodocidae
 E  Camarasauridae
 F  Brachiosauridae
 G  Titanosauridae (incl. saltasaurs)

Although just my first preliminary stab at classifying this group (plesia to 
be added later), it shows camarasaurs as sister group to a 
Brachiosauridae-Titanosauridae clade.  I should note that the placement of 
Euhelopodidae is controversial, and if it is actually sister group to 
Titanosauridae (to the exclusion of Brachiosaurids and Camarasaurids), I 
will simply move Euhelopodidae down:

6C  Diplodocidae
 D  Camarasauridae
 E  Brachiosauridae
 F  Euhelopodidae
 G  Titanosauridae

Thus the classification is stable (same five families), but I can show a new 
splitting sequence by just changing the coding.  So I am quite aware that 
"Science is Changing", and my classifications can reflect the changes (but 
with fewer of the side-effects of strictly cladistic classifications).  
Sometime this fall or winter, I will attempt a detailed classification of 
neosauropods down to the level of genus (which would make it easier to see 
the differences between the dinosauricon approach and my own more 
traditional approach).  In my opinion, both cladifications and 
classifications serve a purpose, and they will eventually converge into one 
(once we get the phylocode experiment behind us---how I dread going through 
that).
               -----Ken Kinman
P.S.  In case anyone might be wondering, I include nemegtosaurs in 
Titanosauridae.  And rebbachisaurs are in Diplodocidae.

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