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


At 12:30 PM 11/16/96 +1030, Jeffrey Martz wrote:
>but ignores the fact that some features, such as
>scales and ectothermy, were lost in mammals and birds.

   There is at least one ectothermic mammal, the naked mole rat, and two
scaled mammals, the armadillo and rat (my ref. was published in 1987, so
this may be out of date.  As of 1987, though, the scales were considered
"reptilian", not conglomerated hairs like the scales of pangolins).

   Birds have scales.  Three types in fact (four if you count feathers), one
of which is homologous to reptilian scales, the other two (three, if
_Sinosauropteryx_ is truly feathered) of which are (probably) homologous to
archosaurian scales.

>     A truly comprehensive phylogenetically based taxonomy NEEDS
>paraphyletic groups.

   I question whether *paleontologists* NEED paraphyletic groups.  Certainly
*creationists** like Jerry Falwell and *obfuscators* like Alan Feduccia need
them.  Paraphyletic groups are almost always used as their biggest weapons
against evolution.

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **