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

Re: New mammalian clade names



We are now far off topic on this, and this is probably
my last bit in the matter, somewhat in reply to Eric
Lurio's response to me.

Nick Pharris wrote:

<Or it could be stated that Insectivora is
monophyletic, but that tenrecs, golden moles, elephant
shrews, etc., are not in fact members of Insectivora.>

  The problem is, historic insectivores are a
polyphyletic assemblage, and include non-eutherians as
Tom Holtz pointed out. Restriction of the
"Insectivora" to a specific set will require realizing
either a paraphyletic assemblage of most-basal
eutherians, or a monophyletic assemblage of forms
nested within the basal radiation or series. This
group will not include macroscelidans, which in both
morphological and molecular trees is closer to either
primates, or elephants. It may not include tenrecs,
which similarly, may be either the most basal
morphological extant eutherians, or are on the lineage
leading towards elephants, along with chrysochlorids.
Chrysochlorids have a long history of being suggested
as elephant ancestors, along with hyracoids. That
leaves true moles, hedgehogs, and shrews. And I think
that tree shrews have also been suggested as primate
ancestors.

  Lipotyphla is moles and allies? If so, "true"
insectivorans lie in the same place in the tree as do
lipotyphlans, and that means they are the same group.

  Oh, I really would rather continue this non-dinosaur
discussion off-list.... :)

=====
Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/