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

Re: New mammalian clade names

I have no strong opinion either way on this matter of Eulipotyphla vs. Lipotyphla sensu stricto. It was probably premature to erect a new name, but at least when Eulipotyphla is used it will be clear what group is being referred to.
The taxon Eubacteria has been used for decades as a subgroup of Prokaryota (or Monera), without any formal taxon Bacteria. In recent years, the situation developed where we actually have Kingdom (or Phylum) Eubacteria referring to the same group as "Domain" Bacteria. Many of those influenced by Woese use the Domain name, but everybody else still uses Eubacteria (and use the name Archaebacteria instead of Domain Archaea).
Another example is Eumycota (true fungi), and you usually don't hear people asking what happened to "Mycota". So it goes. Nomenclature doesn't always make sense. :^o
-----Ken Kinman
From: NJPharris@aol.com
Reply-To: NJPharris@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: New mammalian clade names
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:58:18 EDT

In a message dated 9/8/00 10:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a0000265@unet.univie.ac.at writes:

> Because Lipotyphla, like Insectivora, has turned out (if it's true) to be
> polyphyletic; tenrecs et al. (now Afrosoricida, part of Afrotheria) have
> been included in Lipotyphla but are not included in Eulipotyphla.

I can see the logic there, but outside of this particular controversy,
"eulipotyphla" makes no sense in the absence of a "lipotyphla" (or, I
suppose, a "pseudolipotyphla").

I would prefer that the name Lipotyphla be retained and its membership

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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.