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

CORRECTION [was Re: A NEW REF, SOME TETRAPODS, AND CLADISTICS & PT]



Jonathon Woolf wrote (responding to Pete Buchholz):
>> TETRAPODA
>> I don't get this discussion at all.....  Tetrapoda has never had any sort of
>> coloquial usage like Reptilia.  There has never been a lable "tetrapod" that
>> excluded stuff like snakes or birds because they don't have feet. 
>True.  I didn't understand what Wagner was getting at with that bit either.
>I've always seen "Tetrapoda" used as the name for the group consisting of all
>land-dwelling vertebrates.  Until the cladists got hold of it, anyway.
        WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!
        Jeez, people, could we please keep straight what we're talking
about? The definition Pete mentions above, the one I call "definition (a)"
was NOT, repeat NOT, my doing. This entire discussion came up because some
poor innocent sould thought that this *was* the definition, and we were all
originally just trying to help that person understand that, although this
may be the literal reading of the term, it is not the scientific usage.
        If you'd followed the whole discussion, maybe you'd see not only
what I was "getting at", but you'd get a very good example of exactly why it
isn't a good idea to go reading too much into names scientists apply to
groups of organisms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
                    "...To fight legends." - Kosh Naranek