[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A Wild Hare [not dino related]



On 2/8/06, Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

I agree--except that rodents and rabbits (=_Glires_) have never been
archontans.*  _Archonta_ should, IMHO, contain _Primates_,
_Scandentia_ and _Dermoptera_. The (least inclusive) clade containing
these and _Glires_ has been given the rather hideous name of
_Euarchontoglires_.

Um, dinosaurs, dinosaurs, dinosaurs.

* Incidentally, classic Archonta--bats, colugos, tree shrews,and
primates--is basically equivalent to Linnaeus' Ordo Primates, except
that I think he placed tree shrews in Ordo Insectivora (not entirely
sure). He listed four primate genera: _Vespertilio_, which essentially
equals Chiroptera; _Lemur_, which included not only all strepsirrhines
but also the colugo; _Simia_ for all non-hominine anthropoids, from
capuchins to orangutans; and _Homo_ for humans ... and chimps!
(Gorillas were unknown then, but later named as _Pan gorilla_, a large
species of chimp--who knows where Linnaeus would have placed them.)
How things have changed!
--
Mike Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com