Re: Martin 2004 critique (somewhat lengthy)

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Baeker" <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:33 AM

> Aaargh. I cannot really believe that this has passed the list - so far -
> uncommented.

You see, I have to stand in the lab for this and the next 3 weeks... :-}

> But the *cladistic definition* of birds as
> dinosaurs is surely not the issue here.

Please don't confuse cladistics ( = phylogenetic systematics = the way how 
to conduct phylogenetics as a science) with phylogenetic nomenclature (the 
way how to define clade names so they can be applied to phylogenetic trees, 
_regardless of how those trees were arrived at_).

> The issue at hand is whether birds are dinosaurs *phylogenetically*.

This can only decided if Dinosauria has _some_ phylogenetic definition.

> Cladistics is meant to *reflect* the phylogeny,

Cladistics is the method to _find_ the phylogeny.

> So please, don't confuse nomenclatural issues with scientific ones.
> They are not scientific.

Here I agree. Cladistics is science, phylogenetic nomenclature is not (it's 
about definitions).