[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Wild Hare [not dino related]
Quoting David Marjanovic <email@example.com>:
> 2. I know that a basal primate, Plesiadapis, has a large diastema,
> among other interesting characters.
May not be a primate; possibly closer to dermapterans,
Where exactly the plesiadapiforms lie is still not clear, but they're
the sister-group either to (the rest of) Primates or to (the rest of)
Dermoptera. (Dermaptera are the earwigs!)
Aagh! He got me! Shouldn't that be "Dermatoptera", anyway?
though (AFAIK) still an archontan.
Euarchontan, yes. (Archonta was the hypothesis that bats -- as a
whole -- are related to Primates + Dermoptera + Scandentia, based on
eye anatomy and I don't know what else.)
Yes, but I hate the idea of having a taxonomic system that includes a
"Euarchonta" without an "Archonta". I prefer to use "Archonta" for
'primates and their closest relatives' (these days, equals Primates,
Scandentia, Derm_o_ptera, Rodentia, and Lagomorpha) and to say that it
has been determined that bats are not, in fact, archontans after all.
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan