Re: Archaeopteryx

[Graydon <oak@uniserve.com>]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:24:50AM -0400, Dinogeorge@aol.com scripsit:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 1:13:03 AM EST, oak@uniserve.com writes:
> 
> << Linnean taxonomy is actively wrong, though; it's based on frankly
>  creationist assumptions.  (Could hardly have been otherwise, considering
>  when it got started.) >>
> 
> These have since been discarded, of course. 

What's a class, in quantifiable, testable terms?

That reliance on the contents of specific heads, most commonly mentioned
hereabouts in genericonometer jokes, is one of the creationist
assumptions.

> For a nice recent account of Linnean versus cladistic classifications,
> see Mayr & Bock, 2002, "Classifications and other ordering systems," J
> Zool Syst Evol Research 40: 169-194.

I'll see if the library has that.

-- 
oak@uniserve.com | Uton we hycgan    hwaer we ham agen,
                 | ond thonne gedhencan    he we thider cumen.
                 |   -- The Seafarer, ll. 117-118.