Re: Personal Perspectives [was crocodylians, amphibians ... (was Sarcosuchus)]

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> The first time I ran into archetypes in biology, as opposed to philosophy
or
> psychology (Jung), was as a basic body plan.
> Linnaeus is based on description.  Look at a bird.  It is substantially
> different from a reptile (snakes, lizards, etc.).  Therefore we will give
it
> a name to distinguish the bird from the reptile.
> The problem is what to do with intermediates, where two essentials are
> mixed.  One is to ignore them in setting the general classification and
> worry about them as difficult particulars.  The other is to make them the
> basis for the classification scheme, the splitting point.

Good summary.

> I have a lot easier time with the first approach than the second
> conceptually, particularly since Linnaeus is based on what I can see
rather
> than what I can infer.

But you can _see_, say, *Eusthenopteron*, *Panderichthys*, *Elginerpeton*,
*Acanthostega*, *Ichthyostega*, *Crassigyrinus*... The basic assumption of
the second approach is evolution, that is, _everything_ is an intermediate
(and nothing in particular is a missing link). The line, not the circle...
:-)
(means: the circles around taxa that touch at the points that represent
"intermediate taxa")

> Please don't insist that Linnaeus can be rejected because of an inherent a
> static divine creation inherent concept; Linnaeus is based on results, not
> causes, observation, not belief.

True. On observation of the impoverished modern world, the mere
3-dimensional surface of a vast 4-dimensional ocean that is much deeper than
broad.

> In that sense, maybe you could even say that a Linnaean approach is more
> scientific. :-)

No. Cladistics is also scientific. It is based on _more_ observation, such
as the evidence that has led to the recognition of evolution, and the
observation of fossils. Linné's approach is falsified :-)
BTW, Linné _presupposes_ archetypes. What if there are no archetypes?
Cladistics ignores them because they are...
unscientific. :-)