![]() | mobile - desktop |
![]() |
|
News & Events:
|
Posted by David L. Martin on July 17, 2002 at 10:41:32:
In Reply to: David, I think he's right posted by steve jones on July 16, 2002 at 14:56:52:
Then let me try to be a little clearer. Before
we can have an "argument" on the subject of
snake size, long before we reach any conclusions
at all, it seems to me we have to look at some
data on the subject. The question before us is
"Which species is larger?" What to do? Collect
some sort of sample, I guess. Measure something
that we can call "size." SVL, total length, body
mass, something. Construct a size-class
distribution. If the question "Which species is
larger?" has any meaning at all, it seems that
the answer must come from those data, somehow.
I see no alternative. Long before we can draw
conclusions like "this species is larger than
that species," we will have to look at those
data.
You say you think I'm assuming that they "reach
the same length, at the same percentage rate per
given population." I assure you I am not.
There is no point in assuming such a thing,
except to clarify an argument. We have to look
at data. It does not help us to say, "atrox is
larger than adamanteus. That explains why there
are more large atrox than adamanteus." We have
to look at data. We have to think more clearly
about what it means to "be larger." I hope that
is not jumping to a conclusion.
I am still waiting to hear where we start.
Subject:
Comments:
Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
|
|
|
|