[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 
> Rallidae 
> Gruidae 
> Otididae 
> Cariamidae 
> Mesitornithidae 
> Heliornithidae 
> Psophidae 
> 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!