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

Re: Dromomeron and Lagerpeton query

Then, Mike, by definition, your Diapsida is redundant with Amniota and Reptilia. Linneaus 1758 may have precedence over all.
It's one problem after another when you get down to it.

David Peters

On Jul 19, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:

2009/7/19 David Peters <davidrpeters@charter.net>:
To find out if Nesbitt et al. screwed up by assuming the pterosaurs are part of their ingroup, you need to conduct a bigger analysis, say with the crown of Diapsida as the ingroup and the araeoscelidians as the outgroup,
for example.

This is assuming the traditional "crown group Diapsida" is monophyletic,
which has never been tested.

That's because its monophyletic by definition.  "Crown group Diapsida"
means the most recent common ancestor of all extant diapsids together
with all its descendants.  It's not something you can test, any more
than you can test that acute angles are less than 90 degrees.