[Previous by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Next by date - RE: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Panstems]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:03:35 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: "David A. Baum" <dbaum@wisc.edu>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]
Quoting "David A. Baum" <dbaum@wisc.edu>: > I agree with Scott that the=20 > PhyloCode has become too concerned with the=20 > narrow concerns of vertebrate paleontologists [...] Could we please stop picking on VP? At least HALF of the vertebrate paleontologists at the meeting opposed these supposed accomodations t= o the "narrow concerns of vertebrate paleontologists." The proposal to limi= t definitions to node- and stem-based formats CAME from a vertebrate paleontologist. Many of the most emphatic objections to apomorphy-bas= ed definitions also came from vertebrate paleontologists. As far as I ca= n tell, proportionally more VP folks than vertebrate neontologists oppose pan= stems. Folks, it's not that vertebrate paleontologists are trying to bend th= e PhyloCode to their will, it is that there are a lot of VP people in the ISPN. T= here HAS been a subtle polarizing of the ISPN, with one group advocating certa= in ideas, and others opposing them. This polarity is NOT along disciplinary lin= es. As far as I can tell, paleontology and neontology are approximately equally = represented in these groups relative to the composition of the Society as a whole= . So, please, lets concentrate on the ISSUES, and not the PEOPLE! Jon