[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Cladistic Taxonomy is defintely the most correct to classify the living
beings, but there's a problem...it is utopic.
A Cladistic analysis will only be "perfect" when ALL species, fossil and
extant, will be discovered, and we will have a complet cladogram. But this
will never happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
To: The Dinosaur Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Phylocode (was Pterosaur relationships)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Kinman" <email@example.com>
> To: <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.
> > 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
> > Michael Benton's soon-to-be published criticism of the PhyloCode
> > will hopefully help to prevent much of the confusion he also believes
> > 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
> many advantages it has over the Linnean system and even the few ones it
> might have over cladistics (markers for the ancestors of eucaryote