[Previous by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Previous by subject - "Last modified on July 1, 2002"]
[Next by subject - "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific discours=]
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:51:45 -0500 (EST)
From: StephanPickering@cs.com
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: qilongia@yahoo.com
Subject: "Qilongia" & chains across the phylogenetic grass
--Boundary_(ID_+jv2mOxcVo5bDjDapxoPIA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
My disagreements with "Qilongia" are derived from fundamental
differences of interpretations of available scientific data, not from
personalized templates, as I believe the PhyloCode/phylogenetic systematics
to be the most important development in taxonomic thought in over a century.
I do not, hence, believe clarity of ideas vis-a-vis that data is served by
"Qilongia"'s misinterpretations of macroevolutionary processes.
The allegedly ad hominem critiques I have offered against "Qilongia"'s
thoughts resulted, in another forum, censorship against my rights, as a
scholar, to present differing opinions against "Qilongia"'s lack of
familiarity with the literature re: avian theropods (similar criticisms were
wittily, and more thoroughly, formulated against him by G.S. Paul). 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.
My prsent brief comments in this forum are not "aggressive", nor
ignorant of the literature since Maleev's original work on Therizinosaurus. I
think Therizinosaurus to be barely diagnosable as a theropod based on the
original hypodigm, and can be reasonably interpreted as a nomen dubium, it
being only later specimens of other taxa allowing a clearer picture of
"therizinosaurs" to emerge. They are my interpretations of all available data
re: the specimens. (As a side note: I have most of the literature in my
archive -- including, "Qilongia", Thomas Holtz's pioneering phylogenies --
amd familiarity [and understanding of what is being articulated] is
ostensibly lacking in many of "Qilongia"'s messages.
Thus, allusion to "harassment" (we are speaking, I repeat, of
differing ideas) are quite humorous, but not applicable here. We must, I
insist, maintain an idea-based framework for discussions. As Schiller said:
Mit Dummheit kamepfen die Goetter sebst selbst vergebens. Geodynamic
perfection in an organismic sandbox can be easily altered with a squirt gun
loaded with ideas. We are here to explore the marvellous rubric of
phylogenetic systematics (including dinosaurology, to which I have dedicated
my life). "Qilongia" does not interest me personally, nor do
his"personalities" nor e-address aliases, or reducing discussions of
phylogenetic systematics to the level of a "reality show".
Unfortunately, "Qilongia" conflates interpretations of processes re:
hybridization and speciation as avenues of speciation, and do not merit
re-analysis. Todd Grantham and Stephen Jay Gould have posited concepts re:
macroevolutionary speciation, and a thought-experiment is here in order
(albeit brief and condensed). Among dinosaurs -- be they the enigmatic,
long-necked "therizinosaurs" or others, including living dinosaurs ("birds")
== we say that combined characters (synapomorphies, etc.), within an
individual, are the basis of "species fitness", viz. species selection. (In
the event that "Qilongia" has access to libraries with journals, and is not
familiar with them, I recommend the work on macroevolutionary processes of
Elisabeth Vrba, Todd Grantham, and the joints papers of Elizabeth Lloyd/SJG,
which could correct his unfortunate confusion.)
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". 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. It will be the course of development, of course, that
the "therizinosaurs" will be thoroughly redefined, that Therizinosaurus will
be either abandoned as a valid taxon or retained if it can be demonstrated
that similar specimens, from the same region, are homologous with the
fragmentary original hypodigm.
One other thought: Kevin de Queiroz population-level lineage segments
for "species" is quite applicable. The organisation of our knowledge of taxa
often derives from analyses of population-level lineage segments, in which a
species uninomial is a useful shorthand, so to speak.
--Boundary_(ID_+jv2mOxcVo5bDjDapxoPIA)
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3
FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman"
LANG="0"><B> My
disagreements with "Qilongia" are derived from
fundamental differences of interpretations of
available scientific data, not from personalized
templates, as I believe the
PhyloCode/phylogenetic systematics to be the
most important development in taxonomic thought
in over a century. I do not, hence, believe
clarity of ideas vis-a-vis that data is served
by "Qilongia"'s misinterpretations of
macroevolutionary processes.
<BR> The
allegedly <I>ad hominem </I>critiques I have
offered against "Qilongia"'s thoughts resulted,
in another forum, censorship against my rights,
as a scholar, to present differing opinions
against "Qilongia"'s lack of familiarity with
the literature re: avian theropods (similar
criticisms were wittily, and more thoroughly,
formulated against him by G.S. Paul).
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.
<BR> My
prsent brief comments in this forum are not
"aggressive", nor ignorant of the literature
since Maleev's original work on
<I>Therizinosaurus. </I>I think
<I>Therizinosaurus</I> to be barely diagnosable
as a theropod based on the original hypodigm,
and can be reasonably interpreted as a <I>nomen
dubium</I>, it being only later specimens of
other taxa allowing a clearer picture of
"therizinosaurs" to emerge. They are my
interpretations of all available data re: the
specimens. (As a side note: I have most of the
literature in my archive -- including,
"Qilongia", Thomas Holtz's pioneering
phylogenies -- amd familiarity [and
understanding of what is being articulated] is
ostensibly lacking in many of "Qilongia"'s
messages.
<BR> Thus,
allusion to "harassment" (we are speaking, I
repeat, of differing ideas) are quite humorous,
but not applicable here. We must, I insist,
maintain an idea-based framework for
discussions. As Schiller said: <I>Mit Dummheit
kamepfen die Goetter sebst selbst vergebens.
</I> Geodynamic perfection in an organismic
sandbox can be easily altered with a squirt gun
loaded with ideas. We are here to explore the
marvellous rubric of phylogenetic systematics
(including dinosaurology, to which I have
dedicated my life). "Qilongia" does not interest
me personally, nor do his"personalities" nor
e-address aliases, or reducing discussions of
phylogenetic systematics to the level of a
"reality show".
<BR>
Unfortunately,
"Qilongia" conflates interpretations of
processes re: hybridization and speciation as
avenues of speciation, and do not merit
re-analysis. Todd Grantham and Stephen Jay Gould
have posited concepts re: macroevolutionary
speciation, and a thought-experiment is here in
order (albeit brief and condensed). Among
dinosaurs -- be they the enigmatic, long-necked
"therizinosaurs" or others, including living
dinosaurs ("birds") == we say that combined
characters (synapomorphies, etc.), within an
individual, are the basis of "species fitness",
viz. species selection. (In the event that
"Qilongia" has access to libraries with
journals, and is not familiar with them, I
recommend the work on macroevolutionary
processes of Elisabeth Vrba, Todd Grantham, and
the joints papers of Elizabeth Lloyd/SJG, which
could correct his unfortunate confusion.)
<BR> 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". 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
<I>Tyrannosaurus </I>+ <I>rex </I>indicates a
least inclusive clade (the "genus"), of which
<I>rex </I>species is an uninomial part. It will
be the course of development, of course, that
the "therizinosaurs" will be thoroughly
redefined, th
<BR> One
other thought: Kevin de Queiroz population-level
lineage segments for "species" is quite
applicable. The organisation of our knowledge of
taxa often derives from analyses of
population-level lineage segments, in which a
species uninomial is a useful shorthand, so to
speak.</B></FONT></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_+jv2mOxcVo5bDjDapxoPIA)--