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

[Graydon <graydon@dsl.ca>]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 10:17:22PM +0000, Ken Kinman scripsit:
> 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. 

I'm a non-scientist.

Cladistic classification is in my experience *less* confusing.  The only
way I can imagine it being more confusing is if one expected the
classification of organisms to be static, which isn't any kind of
reasonable expectation in an evolved world.

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

Dodson is arguing methedology and limits of confidence, *not* against
the idea of cladistic classification as such.  I think his criticisms of
methodology are generally sound, and resemble some of the arguements in
analytical chemistry a hundred years ago.

-- 
                           graydon@dsl.ca
               To maintain the end is to uphold the means.