[meteorite-list] Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:29:48 -0600
Message-ID: <034201c82aea$ee7618d0$4b29e146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, Michael, and the H. heidelbergensian Clutch,

> As does
> Particularly poor grammar, these errors in basic taxonomic
> Terminology grate on the nerves terribly.

    Yes, our own specialties in life make us sensitive
to the fact that others do not always observe the
punctilious formalism of each and every specialization
that might apply in each discussion. However, this
is an informal forum, is it not, where what is said
is the point, not the perfection of how it's said?

    Someone with an special interest in the formalisms
and use of the English language might be irrationally
annoyed by the fact that ALL your emails have the first
letter of every line capitalized as if they were grand
Whitmanesque epic poems in free verse instead of,
well, emails.

    The best course is to ignore these petty details
and never mention them, a rule I have just broken
in order to point out why it's best not to do it. We
can take a pill for our nerves; stick a PostIt with
the "mote and beam" quote over our monitor; or
hire a nearby surfer to wander in periodically and
say, "Whoa! Lighten Up, Dude" (unless that
annoys you more).

    We're debating the taxonomy of a species (or
subspecies or regional variation) because of E. P.'s
contention of a population split into two ranges by
the consequences of an impact event -- impact being
the anchor to meteoritic topical legitimacy.

    Frankly, I don't think much of the idea (sorry, EP).
I think that below a certain threshhold, the ecology of
the Earth just flows life back into an empty place in very
short order; the only time it doesn't do it immediately
is in an extinction event.

    Given the dating, E. P. might be better off arguing
that the "splitting" of an archaic hominid range gave
rise to H. heidelbergensis to the west of an impact when
otherwise they would have covered the area to the east
as well. But I don't like either argument, myself.

    The whole subject of impacts is one of several core
concerns on the List. There's the Market/Collector Core,
the Petrology Core, the Asteroid/Comet Core, the Impact
Core and likely other smaller cores. We frequently wander
into history with that last one. Big impacts are infrequent
events; I don't recall seeing one. Indentifying past ones
is the only way to ascertain their true frequency. And
THAT is a very important issue.

    And that drags us off into all kinds of topics that seem
strange for a "meteorite" list: radiocarbon dating; isotope
dating of all kinds, actually; archaeology; early human
history, "ancient" history, medieval history; myths, legends,
and folklore; Babylonian astronomy; oceanic deposits;
cosmic dust; and on and on... All completely relevant to
the meteoritic, however far-ranging. (It's a big universe.)

    The relevance, for example, of the very recent small
"Son of Rosetta" thread is not that this is a "spacecraft"
list, but because it ultimately bears on the question of
small NEO density and frequency.

    As for the ultimate fate of every suggested line of
evidence in E. P.'s book, my attitude is thus: if even
a tenth of his suggested indications of impact were to
prove out under future analysis, it would be a major
contribution. What he is doing is what's called "primary"
research, digging for the indicators of the places to look
for evidence, not providing evidence (that would take
five lifetimes). He is not a cautious academic writer,
but no cautious academic writer would attempt what
he has. No, I'm not shilling for his book; he does a fine
job of that himself. But if you haven't read any of E. P.,
here's an excellent example of his good work... for free:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html

    Kick back and relish the variety, Michael. It's like
an "All You Can Eat" Idea Bar.


Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>; "E.P. Grondine"
<epgrondine at yahoo.com>; "Andreas Gren" <info at meteoritenhaus.de>; "Meteorite
List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates


Hi Sterling, Andreas and all,
        This topic (Physical Anthropology [as well as Cultural
Anthropology]) is what I teach week in and week out at the
College level (as well as Sociology, Social Psychology, etc).
        I do NOT think debating the status of a paleospecies
Is appropriate to the meteorite list. HOWEVER, for those
That insist, PLEASE at least post it as Homo heidelbergensis
NOT "Homo Heidelbergensis" with a capitalized H in the
Second term. ALL species are binomial with the first name
Being the same as the genus to which the species belongs, and
Capitalized with the second term NOT capitalized.
        Furthermore, paleospecies, or morphospecies are terms
Reserved for extinct species largely because it is impossible to be
Absolutely sure of difference of species (it could be variation
Within a given species (due to gender, local adaptation, diet,
Cultural/behavioral practices, etc.).
        However, again, NOT a topic for the met list - but IF you
Insist, at least write it properly. (PS: Most offensive of all is
"Heidelbergensis" alone, not preceded by "Homo." As does
Particularly poor grammar, these errors in basic taxonomic
Terminology grate on the nerves terribly.
        Best wishes, Michael
Received on Mon 19 Nov 2007 03:29:48 PM PST