Re: crocodylians, amphibians ... (was Sarcosuchus)

[chris brochu <cbrochu@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>]

>      I don't understand why Chris continues to look at this as:  us 
> scientists versus them non-scientists.  If it were that clearcut, 
> then we would just have to keep educating the public about things 
> they should have learned in school----spiders are not insects, 
> mushrooms are not plants, ichthyosaurs and mammoths are not 
> dinosaurs.


Except that most of them don't learn it in school.  I've encountered 
college students who were unaware that bats are not birds, or that 
whales are not ray-finned fish.  And many adults continue to believe 
that spiders are insects, even if the majority have high school 
diplomas.  I agree that our job would be much simpler otherwise.



>      Unfortunately, cladistic classifications have already become so 
> "precisely" complex and confusing that a separate code is now in the 
> works as an attempt to straighten it all out.


As opposed to the earlier system, which had a code that went through 
multiple editions as a result of the complexity.  Oh, wait - there 
are, what, four other codes out there?




>   I think you would be shocked to learn how unpopular cladistics is 
> among botanists (outside of the small group pushing for cladistic 
> botany).


Yes, I might - since I know quite a few botanists, all of whom 
advocate cladistics (even if they're ecologists).  I know several 
dislike PhyloCode, but that is quite separate from disliking 
cladistics (or even from disliking phylogenetic nomenclature, which 
is also independent of PhyloCode).




>  Even among zoologists, invertebrate people tend to be more 
> skeptical than the vertebrate people (although the latter contain a 
> lot of people like Dodson and Benton).

Uh.....since when did Benton oppose cladistics?  I know from his 
paper that he has problems with PhyloCode, but he's published 
phylogenetic taxon definitions before - have a look at his paper on 
Scleromochlus, for example.

And Dodson has problems with cladistics all the way through. 
Dodson's and Benton's arguments have nothing to do with each other.



>      Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think cladism has 
> peaked and it's probably all going to be down hill from here.

Ah, I see.  More and more people are using it, it's becoming the 
standard in many journals, it's central to getting grants for several 
programs at NSF, but it's on its way out.  Sorry to hear that.


chris

--
------------------------
Christopher A. Brochu
Assistant Professor
Department of Geoscience
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

christopher-brochu@uiowa.edu
319-353-1808 phone
319-335-1821 fax

www.geology.uiowa.edu/faculty/brochu