“Is that important and why not stress that aspect?”
We frequently hold the Scientific American up to criticism, because it is so frequently wrong about so many things it publishes in these days under its latest publishers. Even so, correct information must in honesty be acknowledged no matter what the source of publication may be. From a scientific point of view the revision of the biological classification is nothing remarkable at all, given the very low numbers of partial fossil specimens used to formulate the earlier classifications. As more and more sets of fossils can be retrieved and in better conditions it becomes possible to observe more similarities and/or more differences in those individual animals. Such observations then make it possible to formulate more accurate and reliable classifications of the animal groups who share the same characteristics. Everyone needs to look farther than the Scientific American, however, to verify the observations of the evidence and evaluate any conclusions made about such observations.
“Everyone needs to look farther than the Scientific American, however, to verify the observations of the evidence and evaluate any conclusions made about such observations.” No I don’t. And that would be “further” correctly written. Nonsense. Bulverism. Know what that is? I will not acquiesce to bulverism, ever.