[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Batch o refs



In a message dated 95-10-02 13:26:46 EDT, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
writes:

>While some cladists, in their youth perhaps, did name every node on their
>cladogram, that is hardly standard practice.
>

Well, check out the _Marasuchus_ papers in JVP. Dinosauromorpha: _Lagerpeton_
+ Dinosauriformes. Dinosauriformes: _Marasuchus_ + Dinosauria. Honestly!

>As Kevin Padian & I will advocate at SVP, only robustly supported clades
>should be named.

A step in the right direction!

>As deQuieroz (hope I spelled it correctly this time) and
>Gauthier have shown, it is a simple enough (and useful) practice to name a
>node-based clade and a stem-based clade for each robuts group.  For example,
>for the node-based Reptilia (the most recent common ancestor of turtles,
>lepidosaurs, and archosaurs), there is the stem-based Sauropsida.  Thus,
>while most sauropsids are reptiles, some (e.g., mesosaurs) are not.

A step backward! Now we need TWO names for each robust group? The only
difference between node-based and stem-based definitions is the little tail
below the common ancestor node (which never has any taxa in it anyway).

G.O.