[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:55:53 -0700
> From: Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
> My position is that the most important thing when deciding whether
> to make two species congeneric is the monophyly of the resulting
The problem with that position is that, by induction, everything
that's ever lived is a single genus. Example: suppose we say that we
have no other specimen phylogentically between _Brachiosaurus
altithorax_ and _"Giraffatitan" brancai_, and for that reason sink
both species into _Brachiosaurus_. Then we observe that the immediate
outgroup to _Brachiosaurus_ is _Sauroposeidon_, so nothing separates
them phylogentically and we therefore sink _Sauroposeidon_, so that
_S. proteles_ becomes _Brachiosaurus proteles_. But the outgroup is
now _Cedarosaurus_, so we sink it into _Brachiosaurus_ and
_C. weiskopfae_ becomes _Brachiosaurus weiskopfae_. But then ...
[skip a bit, brother]
... But the outgroup is Plantae, so we sink we sink plants into
_Brachiosaurus_, and our work here is done :-)
To be clear, I fully realise that you are not advocating going to
these extremes. But I do think this shows that you can't just rely on
monophyly of the new, broader genus when deciding whether one should
be sunk into another.
I guess we could say that monophyly of A-together-with-B is a
necessary but insufficient condition for sinking A into B.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I'm not a lawyer; I have, however, done some dumb things"
-- Jane MacDonald.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio