> the piece argues that we should let go of our common-sense categories and use the descent-based ones, like the biologists do. The piece has a list of conclus

> the piece argues that we should let go of our common-sense categories and use the descent-based ones, like the biologists do. The piece has a list of conclusions at the bottom > taxonomy is not automatically a great category for regular usage. > (You can, at least, say that a tree is a strategy. Wood is a strategy. Fruit is a strategy. A fish is also a strategy.) > insisting that “wood” is not a useful or comprehensible category would be the most fascinatingly obnoxious rhetorical move. Just the pinnacle of choosing the interestingly abstract over the practical whole.