Reading for 4/27

Tonight's reading made me think about the ways the dinosaur exhibits at the AMNH are laid out. Now understanding the museums use of cladistics, I realize how exactly they inferred those rooms to work. In looking at the history of the museum I think this makes a lot of sense. The cladistic method (although incredibly fixed) is very literal and characteristic of the absolutist approach we sometimes associate with the museum. This also makes sense specifically when explaining evolution, which is so mistrusted as a theory, to the public, that having a very literal and less observational method of organization may seem more trustworthy. However, as I experienced that space I didn't really have a collective idea of how these animals/vertebrae correspond or differ. Like Asma, I had a Russian dolls experience with how I interpreted each room. This is where Ghiselin's theory seems very applicable, seeing as he not only examines similarity, but more importantly difference. I found the part about humans need to group things that are similar to be really interesting especially in correlation to the museum. However, Ghiselin points out that this is all relative to a point. By that I mean objects can have multiple similarities, but it's their differences, and levels of difference that makes ones ability to group things incredibly ambiguous.