[Previous by date - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Next by date - Thoughts on the Paris meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=]
[Next by subject - Re: "Qilongia", nomenclature, taxonomy]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:21:30 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_xPjUmsXNAID/5ecGxQ/QTw) Content-type: text/plain;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable As I propose in the introduction to my in-progress book, Mutanda = =3D Dinosaurologica, it is imperative that the language of scientific = =3D discourse be one of clarity, especially when one is elucidating =3D phylogenetic systematics. I agree with this old idea that you emphasize once more. However, as = an =3D aside, I think you should note that on this list we are not elucidati= ng =3D phylogenetic systematics ( =3D3D cladistics) at all. We are making = =3D phylogenetic nomenclature. [...] the pseudo-intellectual nonsense propogated by "Qilongia". Which is? I haven't found any nonsense that Jaime had written to this list late= ly. If he had a relevant, serious ideation, In the light of your first sentence, why do you write such an unclear= =3D word as "ideation" here? Why not just "idea", its well-known synonym? for quite sometime at the DML, he has demonstrated a shocking lack = of =3D knowledge, even rudimentary, of the comparative anatomies and =3D ecomorphologies of archosaurs, including living theropods. Which, even if true, would be completely irrelevant for this list, as= =3D you doubtless know. So why do you bring it up here? [...] the PhyloCode remains the most important redefinition of = =3D taxonomy since Linnaeus and Hennig. The PhyloCode has nothing to do with taxonomy. It's about nomenclatur= e. =3D Taxonomy is how to build a raw classification, no matter according to= =3D what guidelines the individual taxa are named; nomenclature is how to= =3D name taxa, no matter how they are arranged. Linn=3DE9's works were ab= out =3D nomenclature and taxonomy; Hennig's work was on taxonomy and (as far = as =3D I know) systematics; the currently used codes are about nomenclature = and =3D a tiny bit of taxonomy; the PhyloCode is purely about nomenclature, a= nd =3D immensely proud of it.=3D --Boundary_(ID_xPjUmsXNAID/5ecGxQ/QTw) Content-type: text/html;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3D"Time= s New =3D Roman" size=3D3D3=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">As I propose in the introduction= to my =3D in-progress=3D20 book, <I> Mutanda Dinosaurologica, </I>it is imperative that t= he =3D language=3D20 of scientific discourse be one of clarity, especially when one is = =3D elucidating=3D20 phylogenetic systematics.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I agree with this old idea that you emphasize once more. However= , =3D as an=3D20 aside, I think you should note that on this list we are =3D <STRONG>not</STRONG>=3D20 elucidating phylogenetic <STRONG>systematics</STRONG> ( =3D3D cladist= ics) =3D at all. We=3D20 are making phylogenetic <STRONG>nomenclature</STRONG>.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3D"Time= s New =3D Roman" size=3D3D3=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">[...] the pseudo-intellectu= al =3D nonsense=3D20 propogated by "Qilongia".</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Which is?</DIV> <DIV>I haven't found any nonsense that Jaime had written to this list= =3D20 lately.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3D"Time= s New =3D Roman" size=3D3D3=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">If he had a relevant, serious= =3D20 ideation,</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>In the light of your first sentence, why do you write such an = =3D unclear word=3D20 as "ideation" here? Why not just "idea", its well-known synonym?</DIV= > <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3D"Time= s New =3D Roman" size=3D3D3=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">for quite sometime at the DML, h= e has =3D demonstrated=3D20 a shocking lack of knowledge, even rudimentary, of the comparative = =3D anatomies=3D20 and ecomorphologies of archosaurs, including living=3D20 theropods.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Which, even if true, would be completely irrelevant for this lis= t, =3D as you=3D20 doubtless know. So why do you bring it up here?</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3D"Time= s New =3D Roman" size=3D3D3=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">[...] the PhyloCode remains the = most =3D important=3D20 redefinition of taxonomy since Linnaeus and=3D20 Hennig.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D3D"Times New Roman">= The =3D PhyloCode has=3D20 nothing to do with taxonomy. It's about nomenclature. Taxonomy is how= to =3D build a=3D20 raw classification, no matter according to what guidelines = the =3D individual taxa are named; nomenclature is how to name taxa, no matte= r =3D how they=3D20 are arranged. Linn=3DE9's works were about nomenclature and taxo= nomy; =3D Hennig's=3D20 work was on taxonomy and (as far as I know) systematics; the currentl= y =3D used=3D20 codes are about nomenclature and a tiny bit of taxonomy; the PhyloCod= e =3D is purely=3D20 about nomenclature, and immensely proud of =3D it.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_xPjUmsXNAID/5ecGxQ/QTw)--