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

Re: New AVES definition refined (more testable?)



HP Mortimer observed:
<"And at least one of these two characters"?!  That sort of definition will
never hold.  We're after shared derived characters, not characters that have
a greater probability of being present.>

Please clarify this statement for me.
I'm confused because I'm starting from the premise that
-- whether characters are shared/derived is an inference
-- that inference is drawn from the characters' presence or absence in
certain beasts
-- the logic of the inference is based on consistency of the
presence/absence of characters as linked with other characters.
Following these multiple conditional logical arguments (if this... and
this... and this..., then that... and that...) is tough enough.

Please note that I'm not commenting on the main point of your argument.  I'm
still back on Aves = birds = contemporary or congruent with contemporary
feathered flying (or secondarily flightless) thingies that are
toothless/beaked, warm blooded, and lay eggs.
The existence of these other groups and how to place them in the most useful
structure for communication is a whole 'nother thing.  But, as HP Keesey
pointed out, that discussion can reach the place of repeating the same
points, and I don't want to get there.