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

Re: DEFENDING MODERN BIOLOGY





Mike,
In the classification of Thecodontiformes which I just posted, I don't include Pseudolagosuchus, preferring to place it near Eoraptor as basal members of Order Saurischiformes.
I placed Sphenosuchidae as sister group to Order Crocodyliformes, and Poposauridae is sister to that clade.
As for Sharovipterygidae, I am still uncertain of it's placement, and that is why I coded it with a question mark.
-----Ken Kinman
********************************************************
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Reply-To: tmk@dinosauricon.com
To: -Dinosaur Mailing List- <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: DEFENDING MODERN BIOLOGY
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:03:35 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Ken Kinman wrote:

> Thecodontia is a paraphyletic group, not a polyphyletic "trash-can".
> And cladists create paraphyletic groups all the time, but just don't realize
> it (or admit it), because they apparently believe speciation is actually a
> sister-sister splitting process, rather than a mother-daughter budding
> process.


But what's the utility of a group that includes _Pseudolagosuchus_ with
_Drepanosaurus_, but not with _Eoraptor_; that includes _Poposaurus_ with
_Rhynchosaurus_, but not with _Sphenosuchus_; that includes
_Sharovipteryx_ with _Aetosaurus_, but not with _Eudimorphodon_; etc.?

____________________________________________________________________________
T. Michael Keesey <tmk@dinosauricon.com> | AIM <Ric Blayze> | ICQ <77314901>
My Worlds <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>

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