[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: cladistics (not a rant:)
Tom Holtz writes:
>Therefore, he has
>proposed to leave Aves as a more inclusive taxon (a node-based taxon,
>Archaeopteryx + modern birds and all descendants of their common ancestor),
>and use Neornithes for the node-based taxon joining all the extant lineages.
Let's see how much trouble I can get into with this one. Assuming for a
moment that BCF is an accurate model for theropod evolution, wouldn't this
make the new "Aves" paraphyletic, and therefore an invalid taxon? If so,
perhaps the previous definition would be better suited for taxonomy.
Orphan Vertebrate Paleontologist
"Can you wait around for a couple of minutes, he won't be long."