[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: PROBLEM WITH AMPHIBIAN GILLS
> > It is artistic convention to reconstruct certain Palaeozoic - early
> > Mesozoic amphibians with bushy or branched external gills, like
> > seen in extant neotenous caudates and most lisamphibian larvae. Is
> > this idea based on nothing more than the idea that, because extant
> > aquatic lisamphibians sometimes have external bushy gills, ancient
> > fossil ones did too? Or is there some proper evidence? I am aware
> > that branchiosaurs and various other fossil larval amphibians really
> > do have bushy external gills (they can often be seen in
> > well-preserved individuals), but what about all these pictures of
> > bushy-gilled plagiosaurs, _Ophiderpeton_ and so on?
> I totally agree, there is not reason, nor is there any REASON to have
> thier skin smooth like modern amphibians. They had scales.
Could you please supply a reference? It's not that I doubt you, but I
really want to read more on this! :)
> > If there is no good evidence for bushy external gills in these
> > taxa, I am wondering if they should be removed. Extant
> > _Megalobatrachus_, which is virtually entirely aquatic and can reach
> > 1.5 m and more, has no external gills thus big aquatic lisamphibians
> > do not need them.
> I think it's the 'term' amphibian that throws people off. They should
> be called amnoites (as Rober Carroll once corrected me), and only the
> lisamphibians should be called amphibians.
"Cladistic correctness" seems to be approaching the absurdity of
"political correctness." Except in a technical paper, I think the
word amphibian is fine because pretty much everyone knows what is
meant. In contrast, creating new words daily is what throws people off.
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com