|
Post by sbell on Jan 13, 2012 13:05:12 GMT
So now its like that paper was never published? The paper just present the idea that Archeopteryx should be reclassified but that does not make it official. Someone cannot just write a paper and say "I think this should change to that" and then it happens. If that was the case than chimpanzees would have been moved over the the Homo genus in 2003 when a paper was published saying they should. Name and classification changes are a big deal, it requires a committee in order to happen. It doesn't require a committee--it requires scientific consensus. In hte case of chimps in Homo, it missed one crucial point--evolutionary history. We may share common ancestors at some point, but there are several steps between that one and the various hominids in between. Unless every early human was reclassified as Homo as well. This is the major reason the idea never really took off. But with time, if enough data supports a major change, it will tend to happen organically, with people simply accepting the changes and working within those frameworks.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 13, 2012 16:13:46 GMT
The paper just present the idea that Archeopteryx should be reclassified but that does not make it official. Someone cannot just write a paper and say "I think this should change to that" and then it happens. If that was the case than chimpanzees would have been moved over the the Homo genus in 2003 when a paper was published saying they should. Name and classification changes are a big deal, it requires a committee in order to happen. It doesn't require a committee--it requires scientific consensus. In hte case of chimps in Homo, it missed one crucial point--evolutionary history. We may share common ancestors at some point, but there are several steps between that one and the various hominids in between. Unless every early human was reclassified as Homo as well. This is the major reason the idea never really took off. But with time, if enough data supports a major change, it will tend to happen organically, with people simply accepting the changes and working within those frameworks. I thought the ICZN was sort of a committee?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 13, 2012 16:23:53 GMT
It doesn't require a committee--it requires scientific consensus. In hte case of chimps in Homo, it missed one crucial point--evolutionary history. We may share common ancestors at some point, but there are several steps between that one and the various hominids in between. Unless every early human was reclassified as Homo as well. This is the major reason the idea never really took off. But with time, if enough data supports a major change, it will tend to happen organically, with people simply accepting the changes and working within those frameworks. I thought the ICZN was sort of a committee? They come down with nomenclature rules, but as far as I know, they do not hold meetings to determine which classifications will be accepted. I think at most, they may determine priority if there is confusion, or rule on synonyms, that sort of thing.
|
|