Message 2001-06-0068: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)

Sat, 12 May 2001 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Re: [Making Up Names _versus_ Emending Names]
[Next by date - [unknown]]
[Previous by subject - Re: Subspecies]
[Next by subject - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]

Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)

Ken Kinman ( wrote:

<This is just "informative" cross-referencing, and any analogies
to being partially pregnant completely miss the point. If you
formally remove an included clade (exgroup) you should leave a
marker there to document it. Cladists get their sister group
information, eclecticists can have exgroups, and everyone's
needs should be accomodated in a single classificaton system
(once we finally shake off the notion that this is not

  This problem can be nipped in the bud (as it were): Don't have
paraphyletic taxa. No need for any reference keys or markers or
cross-referencing designs when they are not of any utility.
Paraphyletic taxa are even less [or more, depending on your
half-empty/full view] objective than mono- or holophyletic taxa,
and I would think the ultimate goal would be to stop using them
such that they given the reader the impression that such a group
is being considered valid in any sense. Pelycosauria and its
emended transformation into Pelycosauriformes is paraphyletic to
boot, and even trying to emend it is an [inadverdent maybe]
recognition of validity. No way its valid for the last two
decades of research.

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices


Feedback to <> is welcome!