Re: ptero and bat origins

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote;

> Yuck.  For God's sake, let's get some clade names that make sense without 
> requiring knowledge of the entire history of mammalian
> classification.

Alas, that ain't going to happen.

> Just call them Lipotyphla, or even Insectivora.

I'm not saddened by the demise of Insectivora, since it was essentially a 
catch-all for "primitive" eutherians (and some non-eutherians), both fossil 
and living - particularly those that lacked derived characters that could 
link them to extant orders.

Thecodontia was used in the same way for Archosauria - if the archosaur was 
primitive and/or it clearly doesn't belong with the crocodiles, dinosaurs or 
pterosaurs, then it's a "thecodont".  In modern usage, the term "thecodont" 
is still used by opponents of a dinosaurian origin of birds in order to 
disguise the fact that they don't have a clue what gave rise to birds.

> Cetartiodactyla?  Totally unnecessary.  Cetacea is a subclade of
> Artiodactyla (or Paraxonia)--it's not even clear that artiodactyls as
> traditionally conceived share a special relationship exclusive of whales.

Recent discoveries (esp. from southern Asia) have reinforced the 
Cetacea-Artiodactyla link.

> > > That the name Scrotifera exists suggests that some synapomorphy
> > exists that fits in the molecular tree, but I don't know it.

I'm developing an intense dislike for the practice of inventing 
anatomy-based names for molecular-based trees.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus