Message 2001-06-0027: Re: Fwd: Vermes

Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:07:51 -0400 (EDT)

[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:07:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Vermes

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Michel Laurin wrote:

> Hi all,
> >Personally, I don't mind using _Synapsida_ (and _Therapsida_) as clades --
> >I've done so for years. I'm just thinking of "selling" the system to a
> >wider audience, some of whom may find these conversions (and those of
> >_Reptilia_, _Osteichthyes_, etc.) hard to swallow, especially when other
> >names for the clades are already in existence (however obscure).
> 	Actually, I don't think that this will be a problem.  Many
> vertebrate paleontologists (including myself) have been using
> Synapsida in this monophyletic sense for so long, that I think this is
> already considered the normal meaning of that name.

Good point. Fine for those taxa, then, but what about groups still used
quite commonly (probably mroe commonly) in their traditional senses, like
_Osteichthyes_ and _Reptilia_?

(_Amphibia_ is not quite so bad, IMHO, since it still refers to the same
group in terms of extant taxa, and most biologists work with extant taxa.)

 Home Page               <>
  The Dinosauricon        <>
   personal                <> --> <>
    Dinosauricon-related    <>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>


Feedback to <> is welcome!