updates on orangutan origins

John Grehan jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Wed Sep 10 12:09:54 CDT 2003

Yes, although its an interesting and unanticipated interpretation. I was
referring to morphology having a different metaphysical (I suppose that
might be the right word) meaning according to the presence or absence of
genetic characters. In the presence of genetic characters morphological
characters have the status of deceit (i.e. lacking reliability, prone to
being misleading etc.), and in the absence of genetic characters
morphological characters are now 'transformed' (should it be 'reformed')
into another state of existence such as they are now respectable citizens
of the phylogenetic world, no longer so misleading or unreliable that we
cannot assert, with some confidence, that for example, Australopithecines
do indeed have something to do with human origins as opposed to saying we
have not idea what Australopithecines are in the first please, let alone
their relationships, because the genetic characters are not there to tell us.

John Grehan

At 08:35 AM 9/10/2003 -0700, Curtis Clark wrote:
>At 09:01 2003-09-10 -0400, John Grehan wrote:
>>Its as if
>>morphology is transformed into different states of being according to the
>>magical presence or absence of genetic characters.
>I'm guessing that I'm misinterpreting what you've written, but the term I
>normally use for that magical transformation is "ontogeny".
>Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
>Biological Sciences Department            Voice: +1 909 869 4062
>California State Polytechnic University     FAX: +1 909 869 4078
>Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu

Dr. John Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
Voice 716-896-5200 x372
Fax 716-897-6723
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org

More information about the Taxacom mailing list