| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
>Those of us who work withthe utility fossilsand those of us who work
>with biology are facing a common threat. The lack of respect accorded
>paleontologists currently threatens our collective professions. Our
>futures are linked. Biostrat is being driven into a cottage industry
>(a situation I think cannot be sustained) The industrial job base that
>sustains populations of bright new paleontologists entering the system
>has withered. (The youngest working economic paleontologist I know of
>in the US is 29. No geriatric but not a spring chicken) Mutual respect
>is a must, even if we are driving at different goals.
I would most certainly agree with this!
However, mutual respect should also be accorded those workers in the field
who have honest professional scientific differences of opinion as to the
composition of and/or variablity within a species. When five different
workers give wildly different opinions as to the make up of a given taxon,
they are not doing so to make things difficult for others (at least I hope
not). Indeed, such a situation might highlight the possibility that the
taxon in question is probably not a suitable index
fossil/paleoenvironmental marker/whatever (since the various professionals
can't agree on what it is!).
Norm McLeod's previous posting raises an interesting question: are the
taxonomies we create answers to the same questions? And if not, what do we
do about it? Keep one taxonomy for biology, and a make new one for
stratigraphic (or environmental, or paleoclimate) purposes? Trace fossils
are already a seperate taxonomy of its own, independant of biological
systematics (in so far as very divergent organisms can produce the same
ichnotaxon).
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov
Vertebrate Paleontologist in Exile Phone: 703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey FAX: 703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
U.S.A.
Partial index: