[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
As far as I'm concerned, the term 'reptile' carries far too much historical
to be of any use as a formal taxonomic term, as the current debate here shows.
of the worst things about cladists is the way they redefine already well-defined
terms - instead they should introduce new ones (or stick with the established
formal names - what was wrong with the far less confusing "Sauropsida"?). The
'reptile' should be used informally only, referring to cold-blooded, scaly
tetrapods (as per its original definition, which would exclude dinosaurs IMHO).
Next they'll try to formally redefine the term 'fish' to include all
(and once again abandon an already perfectly good and well-established formal