[Previous by date - Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]
[Next by date - Re: RE: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-basedclassification]]
[Previous by subject - RE: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation]
[Next by subject - RE: a comment on ancestor]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:44:07 -0400
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
To: kinman@usa.net, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: RE: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]
Ken Kinman writes: > From: kinman@usa.net [mailto:kinman@usa.net] > > 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. Not quite an accurate read of folk taxonomy. While it is true that most cultures recognize a category "bird" (which often includes bats), I can't think of a folk taxonomy that recognizes a "Reptilia" sensu Romer and company (i.e., a group comprising turtles, lepidosaurs, crocs, and nothing else in the living world). These critters tend to be lumped in the general quadruped catagory, and are not brigaded off in a particular section exclusive of mammals. Indeed, Linnaeus himself had some rather peculiar combiantions of taxa in his Amphibia (Reptilia)... Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. Vertebrate Paleontologist Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program University of Maryland College Park Scholars College Park, MD 20742 http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: tholtz@geol.umd.edu Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796