[Previous by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Previous by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:57:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor
--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote: > (In fact, I think *Reptilia* should be defined in such a way, to prevent the > huge change in content necessary to conform to its sometimes used > crown-group definition -- which includes birds but excludes theropsids, and > is almost identical to *Sauropsida*.) Actually, if turtles turn out to be derived diapsids, as some studies suggest, crown-group _Reptilia_ would be exactly identical (heterodefinitionally synonymous) to _Sauria_, which might not be such a bad state of affairs, if _Sauria_ were given priority. I generally don't mind traditional paraphyletic groups being converted to clades, but referring to hummingbirds as reptilian anthracosaurs seems a little odd. Then again, I suppose them being coelurosaurian dinosaurian archosaurian saurians sounds odd until you get used to it, too.... ===== =====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html