[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: ['SERPENTINE LACERTIDS']
On 3 Jul 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> In a related topic, I've been told that serpentes & lacertilia are not
> formerly recognized taxons in PT.
Lacertilia is certainly paraphyletic, but Serpentes could certainly be
used. I think Ophidia is the name for the clade of snakes, though.
> Harry W. Greene used lacertilia in his description of snake evolution in his
> book: Snakes The Evolution of Mystery in Nature. According to him, lacertilia
> was a more accurate term for the suborder for lizards, than sauria, but then
> that was 3 years ago and taxonomic nomenclature seems to change faster than
> computers, so I suppose they could have changed the more inclusive name
Sauria is now used for the least inclusive node-based group containing
Archosauria and Lepidosauria. The crown group of Diapsida, basically.
> At any rate, this is all pretty much irrelevant anyway, since the point I was
> trying to make was that we don't go around calling snakes lizards even though
> they phylogenetically are. So why should we go around calling birds dinosaurs
> other than to make it sound like dinosaurs didn't go extinct. The names are
> there to make life easier, so why should we go around confusing the matters
> any more.
Like I said, Dinosauria is a scientific taxon; "lizards" is not.
T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org> | AIM <Ric Blayze> | ICQ <77314901>
My Worlds <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>