[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Williams, Tim wrote:
> Yep. I think the tete-a-tete between Jaime and Mike superbly demonstrates
> (almost as well as Ken has) the problem with using apomorphy-based
> definitions. Aside from the assumption of monophyly
I don't see how that's a problem if you specify that the trait must be
synapomorphic with that in a certain species or specimen.
> there's also the problem of differentiating incipient stages from
> secondary derivatives. This is especially acute in bird evolution - the
> semilunate carpal and sternal keel are good examples.
Now THAT I agree is a problem. (Not to mention the problem if you find a
basal avian that appears to go near the root of _Carinatae_ _sensu_
Gauthier & de Queiroz 2001, but it does not have the sternum preserved!
This sort of thing is actually a huge problem for their _Avifilopluma_,
which is based on presence of feathers.)
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>