[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Undefined names, Caudipteryx
> >because it conveys more information (even if only about the "size" =
> >contents of Aramidae).
> Maybe, but you shouldn't forget that everyday people don't work with
I think that's changing... phylogenetic trees are everywhere, and nowadays
most are made by means of cladistics.
> and if you have to put something like phylogeny in a book for the
> masses it's much more comprehensible if everything's placed in
> ''niveaus'' of the same importance to avoid that people might wonder why
> some species seem to have a far greater importance or status then other
To the contrary! It's much more comprehensible if *Trichoplax adhaerens*
doesn't get a monotypic subkingdom, which creates the illusion of a huge
diversity that isn't there. Having Aramidae and Gruidae next to each other
makes one think that they're equally diverse. If *Aramus* alone is the
sistergroup of Gruidae, why not present it as such?
In addition, "the same importance" is misleading anyway. I'm sure
you've heard all those lamentations "yeah... insect orders are really more
like vertebrate classes... compared to everything else, vertebrates are
totally oversplit..." -- we can't measure importance, _so why create the
illusion that we could?_
(For the record... I don't have an opinion on gruiform phylogeny.)
> Well there is this subfossil kagu,though I don't remember it's name as a
> species.Furthermore,some include the extinct New Zealand adzebill
> (Aptornis (or Apterornis)) in Rhynochetidae as well.
> As for Psophia,I believe no fossil ones have ever been described,but
> they must have existed obviously!
But as long as we don't know any, why are we carrying the name Psophiidae
around? We can always invent it later, when or rather if such a fossil is
actually discovered. We don't need it yet.
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!