[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Phylocode (was Pterosaur relationships)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:03 PM
Subject: Phylocode (was Pterosaur relationships)
> The hope of strict cladists that paraphyletic groups (NOT
> like Reptilia are going to be abandoned is probably a pipe dream. Vermes
> was a polyphyletic wastebasket, Reptilia is not (it's paraphyletic).
Thecodontia was both a wastebasket and paraphyletic...
The real problem with paraphyletic taxa is where to draw the line(s) --
where in phylogenesis ( = on the cladogram) do amniotes stop to be reptiles?
> Michael Benton's soon-to-be published criticism of the PhyloCode
> will hopefully help to prevent much of the confusion he also believes the
> PhyloCode will cause.
Never heard of that, looking forward to it -- where will it be published?
> Therefore I encourage those who continue to recognize a traditional
> Reptilia, although one needs to now indicate whether you are using it in
> traditional or cladistic sense. Perhaps someday we will all refer to a
> traditional (but semi-paraphyletic) Reptilia once again,
I think it is simply too late to make the Kinman System popular, despite the
many advantages it has over the Linnean system and even the few ones it
might have over cladistics (markers for the ancestors of eucaryote