[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny
On 9/1/07, Jaime A. Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andreas Johansson (email@example.com) wrote:
> <There is nothing magical with the (morpho-)species level here. Couple of
> ago, SciAm printed a cladogram with _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ as sister
> species: very fine, except putting them in as unitary taxa assumes a priori
> that the former isn't paraphyletic with regard to the later.>
> While it is likely *H. erectus* (as likely with *H. ergaster*) is
> paraphyletic with regards to *H. sapiens*, this doesn't affect what David M.
> was talking about, in response to what Dave P. was talking about, which was
> individual/specimen verus collective OTU capsulization (i.e., putting a
> [hopefully] monophyletic group of taxa into a single operating taxonomic
I agree with David Marjanovic's basic point - I was just picking a nit
concerning his qualifier "supraspecific".
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?