[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Is *Eudibamus* a Reptile?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 4:33 PM
Subject: Is *Eudibamus* a Reptile?
> David Marjanovic wrote:
> <Heh, heh. If we accept the phylogeny in the Science paper on
> Eudibamus, then Mesosauridae belongs into Parareptilia/Anapsida, and
> Reptilia has the same content as Sauropsida, so it can be
> (yabbadabbadoo) ignored in favor of the latter, and the debate whether
> we should call a bird and/or another dinosaur a reptile can be ended.
> Like Huxley said in the 19th century, it is a sauropsid.>
> It may be both: Sauropsida is a stem-clade, defined as anything
> closer to one form than another, whereas Reptilia is a crown-group
> node-clade, defined as the most recent common ancestor of a living set
> of organisms, including its fossil descendants. In this case,
> Sauropsida includes Reptilia, but is still valid in either case. The
> content may be the same, but a new fossil could change this, and
> *Eudibamus*' only claim to fame will be its hips....
> Clade names are not just content related, which they were prior to
> distinguishing the nature of their _diagnosis_ and their _definition_.
That was what I tried to imply :-] when I wrote "ignored", not "abandoned"
or "dropped". As the content is at present the same, no one forces us to use
Reptilia when we are speaking of the content, what we do most of the time.
What's the matter with the hips of *Eudibamus*?
Whatever, if turtles are archosauromorphs, then the term Reptilia will
become quite useless, I think.
BTW, definitions can still change (shouldn't in most cases, okay) before
PhyloCode is official.
> Good Morning, Neverland!