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

Re: ptero and bat origins




Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote:

I'm not arguing that whales are not related to those species traditionally included in Artiodactyla (see above: "Cetacea is a subclade of Artiodactyla"). What I meant in the second sentence was: if Artiodactyla is actually *paraphyletic* with respect to Cetacea, as seems possible, then "Cetartiodactyla" as a name is unnecessary: Cetacea would merely be subsumed under Artiodactyla.

Oh, definitely. I agree wholeheartedly. It's like changing the name of Dinosauria to Avedinosauria simply because birds are a subgroup of dinosaurs.


Even if traditional Artiodactyla and Cetacea are sister-groups, I think
Paraxonia sounds better than Cetartiodactyla :-)

Alas, euphony isn't a major criterion for coining new names for clades. Nor is logic, on many occasions. Thus we have (in some phylogenies) Eusuchia as a subgroup of Pseudosuchia.




Tim


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus