[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" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
Ken Kinman (kinman@hotmail.com) 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 possible).> 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 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/