[Previous by date - Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]
[Next by date - RE: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]
[Previous by subject - Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]
[Next by subject - Re: a comment on ancestor]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]
On Thu, 3 May 2001 kinman@usa.net wrote: > In many cases, the well-defined clade is not only well-defined but > distinctive enough that it has often been raised to a higher rank. One such > an embedded clade is Aves which was so distinctive that even primitive peoples > paraphyletically removed it from Reptilia. Not consciously of course, but > this is how the human brain normally classifies, at least when it hasn't been > conditioned to believe that paraphyly is something unnatural. Actually, the clade that "primitive peoples" recognize is _Neornithes_, not _Aves_. If they knew of semi-winged non-avians like _Caudipteryx_, the clade might even be extended to _Maniraptora_. And since bats are often considered "birds" or "demi-birds" in folk taxonomies, it can be a polyphyletic group. And since when should folk taxonomy be a basis for biological systematics, anyway? (Shall we resurrect "Vermes", "Pisces", and "Pachydermata"?) _____________________________________________________________________________ T. MICHAEL KEESEY Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com> Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com> AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ICQ <77314901> Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>