[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Undefined names, Caudipteryx
(Wow. My 5th mail today...)
> > -- And under Linnaean taxonomy there _is_ a need for that name,
> Well,that's to put everything in convenient,easy-to-work-with ''boxes.''
> It just doesn't work to have all kinds of taxa just hanging around in a
> phylogeny in a way like this:
Of course it does (for me :-) ). What you present below isn't a phylogeny
(and then the monophyly of Gruiformes is in discussion...).
> Order Gruiformes
> oh yeah and then we got Aramus,Rhynochetos & Eurypygia wich can't be
> more properly placed in families,because these would be monotypical.
> Doesn't work easy for me.
In a list as above, it does look clumsy. But in a cladogram, I think this
looks much better than
because it conveys more information (even if only about the "size" =
contents of Aramidae).
> Furthermore,Rhynochetidae,Eurypigidae & Aramidae aren't the
> same at all as their respective species,wich happen to count only one
> each,because all three families include fossil members as well that
> obviously aren't part of the living species.
Oh, I wasn't talking of such cases. I agree the 3 aren't monotypic just
because only one species each survives. (Though... what known extinct
rhynochetid is there? And what psophiids are there except *Psophia*? Real
questions, not rhetorical ones.)
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!