----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:14
David Marjanovic 07 April 2002
If it is probable that diadectomorphs are
amniote, in my opinion, they should be placed within
You mean if they laid amniote eggs? Should
Amniota exchange its node-based definition for
a currently inapplicable apomorphy-based one?
"Amniotiformes" synonymous of "Amniotomorpha" is
already used in Dinosauricon cladogram to name the clade that includes
Westlothiana has recently come out as
either the sister group to crown-group Tetrapoda or as the basalmost
Why multiply names founded on soft
Amniota is founded on soft tissue. -iformes
and -omorpha are founded on Amniota, and not on soft tissue :-)
2) Sure it can. Pisces has been
But not outside the door in the external
"Fish" has not been dismissed. "Pisces" has
Since science needs to be divulged after all. The
title of the beatiful book of John A.Long is
"The rise of fishes" not "The rise of Craniates" as it would expected by
orthodoxy for a book that start with myxinidae.
Inside you can find cladograms mixed with popular
terms like: jawless fishes, ray finned fishes, etc.
Absolutely no problem with that. But he
never uses Pisces in the book, does he?
Interesting arguments about
2) How can they diverge before sauropsids when
they are the sister group to_Sauropsida_ ? By definition, both diverged from
each other at the same time.
Perhaps is better, from my side, to say that
synapsids are the earliest monophiletic lineage that can be well demonstrated
to have diverged within amniota.
Hm. By definition Amniota diverges
immediately, forming Theropsida and Sauropsida at the same time (except for
their common ancestor, there is no amniote that belongs neither to Thero- nor to
Sauropsida). BTW, the oldest known amniote, Hylonomus (still?), happens
to be a sauropsid. :-)