Message 2004-10-0080: RE: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:02:55 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: ISPN, CPN, and Companion Volume]
[Next by date - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - RE: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter]
[Next by subject - RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:02:55 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: RE: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]


Just for the record - I wasn't complaining about paleontologists, but
was merely making an observation regarding percentages or numbers of
representarives versus other groups, and I hadn't even mentioned
vertebrate paleontologists specifically. The numbers reflect interest=
 by
researchers in  certain disciplines versus disinterest by others.  Th=
e
facts that disciplines are disproportionately represented should be a
concern if a code is meant to cover all taxonomic groups. Differences=
 in
nomenclatural opinions aside, I actually enjoyed the opportnity to
exchange ideas with paleontologists (when else would I interact with
such individuals?), e.g. over dinner.

-----Original Message-----
=46rom: jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
[mailto:jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu]=3D20
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:04 PM
To: David A. Baum
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=3D20
> PhyloCode has become too concerned with the=3D20
> 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
panstems.

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.
There 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


  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!