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

Re: Tetrapoda (was Re: Phyl tax misunderstandings)

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> At 09:59 AM 11/16/97 -0500, C. Kammerer wrote:
> >Arguments on exactly what "legginess" is aside, isn't there the clade
> >Eotetrapoda to enclose Ichthyostega & friends + Tetrapoda according to
> >Laurin? This excludes basal tetrapodomorphs such as Elpistostege and all the
> >other "fish".
> Yes, there is.  However, for some reason, some people on this list object to
> the addition of new names to "catch" distal relations of well-established
> groups.

This is news to me. I haven't heard of the "Eotetrapoda" (it is also a
little unfortunate since I thought the old name "Labyrinthodontia" would
be excellent for this purpose. Laurin and Reisz
certainly did not use "Eotetrapoda" in their 1997 paper. Personally I
don't care what definition is settled upon, I just noted the strong
resistance to removing the non-crown group taxa from the Tetrapoda by the
publishing experts in the field (Per Ahlberg, Mike Coates, Jenny Clack
etc.) not just people on this list.


Adam Yates