[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Follow up to Non-amniote sarcopterygians
Forgot to mention the funniest line in:
RUTA, M., M.I. COATES and D.L.J. QUICKE. 2003. Early tetrapod relationships
revisited. Biological Reviews 78: 251-345.
[the last sentence is the funny one: the rest of the paragraph is the
"A further nomenclatural issue concerns the application of historically
laden names to novel phylogenetic de?nitions (see also Anderson, 2001).
Laurin?s (1998 a?c) Anthracosauria is a prime example, because it includes
none of the taxa traditionally placed within ?anthracosaurs ?,such as
embolomeres, gephyrostegids and, more questionably, seymouriamorphs (Heaton,
1980; Smithson, 1985; Panchen& Smithson,1987, 1988; Gauthier et al., 1988 b;
Forey,2001).Instead,the new de?nition refers to a clade encompassing
Solenodonsaurus, diadectomorphs and crown-amniotes. Consequently,
Anthracosaurus russelli Huxley, 1863 is neither an anthracosaur nor a
tetrapod,whereas T.H. Huxley himself would be classi?ed as a cotylosaurian
Of course, it should be pointed out this common complaint about phylogenetic
definitions (many of the complaints coming out of Bristol-based or -educated
paleontologists...) is in fact really a complaint about poor choice of
definitions that should, ultimately, be distinct from complaints about the
concept of PT.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796