Message 2004-10-0076: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:03:35 -0500

[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" <>
Subject: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]

Quoting "David A. Baum" <>:

> 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=
definitions to node- and stem-based formats CAME from a vertebrate
paleontologist. Many of the most emphatic objections to apomorphy-bas=
definitions also came from vertebrate paleontologists. As far as I ca=
n tell,
proportionally more VP folks than vertebrate neontologists oppose pan=

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 =
in these groups relative to the composition of the Society as a whole=

So, please, lets concentrate on the ISSUES, and not the PEOPLE!



Feedback to <> is welcome!