[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
Ken Kinman (email@example.com) wrote:
<This is just "informative" cross-referencing, and any analogies
to being partially pregnant completely miss the point. If you
formally remove an included clade (exgroup) you should leave a
marker there to document it. Cladists get their sister group
information, eclecticists can have exgroups, and everyone's
needs should be accomodated in a single classificaton system
(once we finally shake off the notion that this is not
This problem can be nipped in the bud (as it were): Don't have
paraphyletic taxa. No need for any reference keys or markers or
cross-referencing designs when they are not of any utility.
Paraphyletic taxa are even less [or more, depending on your
half-empty/full view] objective than mono- or holophyletic taxa,
and I would think the ultimate goal would be to stop using them
such that they given the reader the impression that such a group
is being considered valid in any sense. Pelycosauria and its
emended transformation into Pelycosauriformes is paraphyletic to
boot, and even trying to emend it is an [inadverdent maybe]
recognition of validity. No way its valid for the last two
decades of research.
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices