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

Re: muddying the waters??



Ahmed,
I *DO* regard Mammalea as a branch of Therapsiformes, and my classification shows this. Within the classification of Order Therapsiformes, I place the marker {{Mammalea}} as sister group to the therapsid Family Tritheledontidae (or you can put it as a sister group to Family Chiniquodontidae if you think that is more accurate).
In the early Mesozoic, the mammals could have been regarded as just another therapsid family, and my marker shows this. But at the same time, the explosive radiation of mammals in the Cenozoic is such that most humans in the present choose to taxonomically upgrade mammals to Class status.
Therefore my classifications add anagenetic (divergence) information to the phylogenetic information. And in the process, I also am able to avoid many of the drawbacks of traditional classifications (cladistic or eclectic). In this context, Classes are very useful.
---------Ken Kinman
****************************************************
From: "Ahmed al-Mahasa Sha'ad" <am_shaad@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: am_shaad@hotmail.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: muddying the waters??
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:25:15 GMT


Nick,
I'm muddying the waters?? If I say Class Mammalea, everyone knows what I am talking about.

Do they??? Indeed? What about those fossil therapsida which are VERY similar to mamamls?? It is not crystal - clear at all for these ones.

'Classes' are useless, is it SO bad to regard Mammalia as a  branch within
the Therapsida??

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com