[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: synapsids are reptiles
--- David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
> |_Sauropsida = Reptilia = Eureptilia_|
> "Unnamed" is called "Amniotiformes" in
> http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/tetrapoda.html (good idea)
> and Stegocephali by Laurin & Reisz (I hate them for that). Sauropsida is
> stem-based, Reptilia
> and Eureptilia have (AFAIK different) node-based definitions, so they are the
> same only in
> currently known contents.
Yes, _Reptilia_ is node-based and _Sauropsida_ is stem-based, so they are
different clades, even
if we do not currently know of any non-reptilian sauropsids. But _Eureptilia_
is actually a
synonym of _Romeriida_ (_Sauria_ <-- _Testudines_), and meant as the sister
_Parareptilia_, a.k.a. _Anapsida_ (_Testudines_ <-- _Sauria_).
Anthracosauria (ugh ... also "Amniotiformes")
|--Synapsida (incl. Mammalia)
|--Anapsida (=Parareptilia; incl. Testudines)
`--Romeriida (=Eureptilia; incl. Diapsida, which incl. Sauria)
> 3) "The situation in amniote phylogeny is so solid".
> I cannot agree with this statement, unless the "solidity" is restricted to
> the fact that
> synapsids diverged before sauropsids.
How can they diverge before sauropsids when they are the sister group to
definition, both diverged from each other at the same time.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax