[Previous by date - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Next by date - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Previous by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Next by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:11:55 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Apomorphy-based definitions
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu> Cc: <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; <mike@tecc.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Apomorphy-based definitions > Hoping that Mike allowed this discussion to be posted to the list ... ...yes, the PhyloCode mailing list :-) > David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote to Mike Taylor (mike@tecc.co.uk) > [and the PhyloCode mailing list (phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu): > > <Suppose you'd be [naïve] enough do define birds as possessing feathers. 8-) Then the definition > would read "the first species that possessed feathers synapomorphic with those of *Passer*, and > all its descendants" and be abbreviated as (Feathers in *Passer*).> > > This definition would be a very bad idea. For one thing, the feathers of *Passer* are suddenly > the defining feature for feathers as a phylogenetic tool; ratite feathers are different, foir the > bulk of their morphology, and it is conceivable that Ratitae would be excluded from this > definition. Completely true; I have used this example because I have read it somewhere (probably Sereno's rationale in Neues Jahrbuch) and for a moment thought it was in the PhyloCode (wrong).