[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?)
George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:
<I have no problem with this; they're certainly more "mammalian"
than other amniotes, aren't they?>
I actually have no problem with these definitions. I will not
be formulating them, and I have a feeling that it is not likely
they will be formulated, speaking aesthetically, and
technically. Should Mammalia be inclusive to the stem of Amniota
with Reptilia as the opposing stem, then fine -- I really don't
This group has a name, however, Synapsida, so you'd have to
argue against usage of Synapsida to formulate Mammalia under
this sense. Sauropsida, on the other hand, as the stem opposing
Mammalia, has adjunct status with Reptilia and may be subsumed
but for the node- versus stem-based definitions for both. And
that fact that Sauropsida may actually be more inclusive than
Reptilia, and may still include non-reptilians and as such is
useful, especially as in Synapsida and Mammalia.
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices