[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
re: definition of "reptile"
I've stayed out of discussion on "mammal-reptile" nature because I have nothign
>[D>[D>[D>[Cothing additional to add. However, I notice that the term "reptile"
by everyone. I suggest the term is meaningless and invalid because the
original Linnean definition and concept is irrevocably changed. I suggest we
substitute "Diapsida" for "Reptilia" and separate all the papaphyletic grointo t
proper lineages: thus, we should recognize the classes:
Diapsida (includes "Euryapids" Squamates, Crocodilia, Archosauromorphs,
Crocodilia, a few miscellanea), Synapsida/Mammalia, Chelonia or Testudina,
and DInosauria/Aves as the constituents of the former "Reptilia." The
Primitive amniotes of the Pennsylvanian-Permian probably deserve a separate
class but I have no great insight into these.
Nothing I've noted above is particularly novel, except the idea of compl drop
Erm "reptilia." Comments?