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

Re: naming nodes

Michael de Sosa wrote-

> Wait a minute, I wrote a report about this paper earlier this semester and
> it was my understanding that Australosphenida explicitly *did not* include
> marsupials (or Metatheria, although I'm not quite sure what that is). Did
> you mean Boreosphenida? Or do I need to brush up on my readin' skillz?

You are correct.  Australosphenida is defined as the monophyletic group
containing Monotremata, Ausktribosphenida and Ambondro.  This seems fine to
me, although I'm not familiar with the recent mammalian literature (couldn't
this just be Prototheria instead?).  Boreosphenida are defined as all
descendents of the most recent common ancestor of Aegialodontidae and
Theria.  However, Boreosphenida has the same membership as Tribosphenida.
It was proposed because the tribosphenic molar was shown to evolve outside
the Tribosphenida, so the latter wouldn't be an appropriate name for only
some tribosphenic mammals.  Ughh.  I see why Jaime groaned.

Mickey Mortimer