[Previous by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - RE: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Previous by subject - Re: "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Next by subject - Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=]
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:38:04 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: "Qilongia" & chains across the phylogenetic grass
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_U1ZqNzsvsUS89aUclndMwQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
My disagreements with "Qilongia"
Now, really, why don't you use his name?
Another censored critic against "Qilongia" is a brilliant paleoartist =
and student of dinosaurology, who maintains an excellent website re: =
archosaurs at <www.dinohunter.info>), who is, for similar reasons, also =
not a part of the forum in question.
Yes, he is a brilliant paleoartist. Yes, he is a good scientist. In =
spite of this he has, AFAIK, unsubscribed from the DML after having been =
timed out a few times because he interpreted very much as personal =
attacks, got enraged and flamed back even though nobody had flamed forth =
-- an unfortunate circumstance which made some discussions pretty =
tiring.
I think Therizinosaurus to be barely diagnosable as a theropod based =
on the original hypodigm, and can be reasonably interpreted as a nomen =
dubium,
Why? And why "as a theropod"? Those meter-long claws are unlike anything =
else on Earth =3D diagnostic.
it being only later specimens of other taxa allowing a clearer picture =
of "therizinosaurs" to emerge.
Yes, of the whole group, of the relationships of Therizinosaurus =
cheloniformis. But being incertae sedis is not the same as being a nomen =
dubium. What do I miss?
While I am at it, back to the topic: I think that, under PhyloCode, =
there should be a clade Therizinosaurus but no species cheloniformis M A =
/\ E E B , 1954, because we still don't have anything near a =
population-sized sample of it; every paleontologist will be able to =
think of similar examples.
As Schiller said: Mit Dummheit kamepfen die Goetter sebst selbst =
vergebens.=20
For those here who are scientists but not scholars: "Even the gods =
themselves fight with stupidity to no avail." (Original without typos =
and without the ae, oe, ue transcription for =E4, =F6, =FC: Mit Dummheit =
k=E4mpfen die G=F6tter selbst vergebens.) However, I fail to see =
stupidity in this discussion...
Geodynamic perfection in an organismic sandbox
Pardon?
reducing discussions of phylogenetic systematics to the level of a =
"reality show".
Well, then consider yourself lucky you've apparently never seen a =
"reality show"! :-) Also please keep in mind that most subscribers to =
the DML are neither scientists nor scholars (let alone both*), so =
they'll inevitably ask questions that have been answered inside the =
ivory tower decades ago.
* As I understand it, a scholar is a learned person (all the same in =
German: Gelehrte/r) who knows the literature but does not necessarily do =
science, e. g. a theologian can be a scholar but not a scientist as =
there are no testable hypotheses in theology. But since the term has =
become rare early last century, maybe this usage is different from other =
people's.
Unfortunately, "Qilongia" conflates interpretations of processes =
re: hybridization and speciation as avenues of speciation, and do not =
merit re-analysis.
What does not merit re-analysis? And why didn't you simply post your =
corrections to the DML?
we say that combined characters (synapomorphies, etc.), within an =
individual, are the basis of "species fitness", viz. species selection.
Assuming species selection exists. Er... but what does that have to do =
with the statement "a hybrid can't be a species" (made by a complete =
layman), with which this discussion began?
(In the event that "Qilongia" has access to libraries with journals,
Unlikely. I mean, not "with journals", but "with a large number of =
interesting journals". I could lament for hours on the pretty big =
geosciences library of Vienna University.
Allow me to use this outline (borrowed from the above writers; > =
here meaning affect): emergent species-level traits > species-level =
fitness (E. Lloyd); aggregate traits > reducible species-level fitness. =
The problematic fulcrum remaining is: are species "units" of =
"selection", or are "species" merely "replicators"? All of this hinges =
on how, when completed in greater degree, the PhyloCode interprets =
"species".
But, probably, not the other way around, so I think we can treat the =
latter problem in isolation from the former. Which is relatively futile =
before a certain important paper will be published.
Setting aside the "therizinosaurs", we can consider dinosaur species, =
e.g., as "uninomials", and relationships among species are taxonomic =
"addresses" (to borrow from the important 1999 by Phil Cantino & team). =
The Linnaean system, of course, is no longer viable in phylogenetic =
discourse. We can say, thus, that Tyrannosaurus + rex indicates a least =
inclusive clade (the "genus"), of which rex species is an uninomial =
part.
In short, do you favor method M or something similar? :-)
It will be the course of development, of course, that the =
"therizinosaurs" will be thoroughly redefined, th
Yes?
--Boundary_(ID_U1ZqNzsvsUS89aUclndMwQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B> My disagreements =
with=20
"Qilongia"</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Now, really, =
why don't you=20
use his name?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>Another censored critic against "Qilongia" is a =
brilliant=20
paleoartist and student of dinosaurology, who maintains an excellent =
website=20
re: archosaurs at <www.dinohunter.info>), who is, for =
similar=20
reasons, also not a part of the forum in=20
question.</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Yes, he is a =
brilliant=20
paleoartist. Yes, he is a good scientist. In spite of this he has, =
AFAIK,=20
unsubscribed from the DML after having been timed out a few times =
because he=20
interpreted very much as personal attacks, got enraged and flamed back =
even=20
though nobody had flamed forth -- an unfortunate circumstance which made =
some=20
discussions pretty tiring.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>I think <I>Therizinosaurus</I> to be barely =
diagnosable as a=20
theropod based on the original hypodigm, and can be reasonably =
interpreted as=20
a <I>nomen dubium</I>,</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Why? And why =
"as a theropod"?=20
Those <STRONG>meter-long</STRONG> claws are unlike anything else on =
Earth =3D=20
diagnostic.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>it being only later specimens of other taxa =
allowing a=20
clearer picture of "therizinosaurs" to=20
emerge.</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Yes, of the =
whole group, of=20
the relationships of <EM>Therizinosaurus cheloniformis</EM>. But being =
incertae=20
sedis is not the same as being a nomen dubium. What do I =
miss?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>While I am at it, back to the topic: I =
think that,=20
under PhyloCode, there should be a clade <EM>Therizinosaurus</EM> but no =
species=20
<EM>cheloniformis</EM> M A /\ E E B , 1954, because we still don't have =
anything=20
near a population-sized sample of it; every paleontologist will be able =
to think=20
of similar examples.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>As Schiller said: <I>Mit Dummheit kamepfen die =
Goetter sebst=20
selbst vergebens. </I></B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">For those =
here who are=20
scientists but not scholars: "Even the gods themselves fight with =
stupidity to=20
no avail." (Original without typos and without the ae, oe, ue =
transcription=20
for =E4, =F6, =FC: Mit Dummheit k=E4mpfen die G=F6tter selbst =
vergebens.)=20
However, I fail to see stupidity in this discussion...</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>Geodynamic perfection in an organismic=20
sandbox</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 =
FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Pardon?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>reducing discussions of phylogenetic systematics =
to the=20
level of a "reality show".</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well, then consider yourself lucky =
you've=20
apparently never seen a "reality show"! :-) Also please keep in mind =
that most=20
subscribers to the DML are neither scientists nor scholars (let alone =
both*), so=20
they'll inevitably ask questions that have been answered inside the =
ivory tower=20
decades ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>* As I understand it, a scholar is a =
learned person=20
(all the same in German: Gelehrte/r) who knows the literature but does =
not=20
necessarily do science, e. g. a theologian can be a scholar but not a =
scientist=20
as there are no testable hypotheses in theology. But since the term has =
become=20
rare early last century, maybe this usage is different from other=20
people's.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B> Unfortunately, =
"Qilongia" conflates interpretations of processes re: hybridization =
and=20
speciation as avenues of speciation, and do not merit=20
re-analysis.</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">What does not =
merit=20
re-analysis? And why didn't you simply post your corrections to the=20
DML?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>we say that combined characters (synapomorphies, =
etc.),=20
within an individual, are the basis of "species fitness", viz. species =
selection.</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Assuming =
species selection=20
exists. Er... but what does that have to do with the statement "a hybrid =
can't=20
be a species" (made by a complete layman), with which this discussion=20
began?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>(In the event that "Qilongia" has access to =
libraries with=20
journals,</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Unlikely. I =
mean, not "with=20
journals", but "with a large number of interesting journals". I could =
lament for=20
hours on the pretty big geosciences library of Vienna =
University.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B> Allow me to =
use this=20
outline (borrowed from the above writers; > here meaning affect): =
emergent=20
species-level traits > species-level fitness (E. Lloyd); aggregate =
traits=20
> reducible species-level fitness. The problematic fulcrum =
remaining is:=20
are species "units" of "selection", or are "species" merely =
"replicators"? All=20
of this hinges on how, when completed in greater degree, the PhyloCode =
interprets "species".</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">But, =
probably, not the other=20
way around, so I think we can treat the latter problem in isolation from =
the=20
former. Which is relatively futile before a certain important paper will =
be=20
published.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>Setting aside the "therizinosaurs", we can =
consider dinosaur=20
species, e.g., as "uninomials", and relationships among species are =
taxonomic=20
"addresses" (to borrow from the important 1999 by Phil Cantino & =
team).=20
The Linnaean system, of course, is no longer viable in phylogenetic =
discourse.=20
We can say, thus, that <I>Tyrannosaurus </I>+ <I>rex </I>indicates a =
least=20
inclusive clade (the "genus"), of which <I>rex </I>species is an =
uninomial=20
part.</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">In short, do =
you favor method=20
M or something similar? :-)</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"><B>It will be the course of development, of course, =
that the=20
"therizinosaurs" will be thoroughly redefined,=20
th</B></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Yes?<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_U1ZqNzsvsUS89aUclndMwQ)--