[Previous by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:55:34 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: apomorphy-based names
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Kevin de Queiroz wrote: > Actually, my point was not the VP workers are more inclined to use explicit > apomorphy-based definitions but that it is often clear that they really > have an apomorphy-based concept of certain clades even when they define > the names of those clades using other types of definitions! And that's > true for some of the clades of non-crown "birds," where node-based > definitions are used when the authors seem to have an apomorphy-based > concept of the clade they are intending to name. Jacques may be able to > provide more details on this. The embarrassing aspect of this is not that I fully understood Dr. De Quieroz's point, nor that I agree with Dr. Gauthier's assertion that the definition of Aves favored by most paleontologists, is an attempt to capture the apomrophy "feathered" (I do agree, and I find the attitude of some of my colleagues toward the definition of the taxon to be a little short-sighted). However, the crushing embarrasment is that my example of Ankylopollexia is a *perfect* example of just this phenomenon. I stand (doubly) corrected. Jonathan R. Wagner