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

Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae



> This does interest me further, though. What are the original
> historical uses of the phrase "clade" that renders classic forms
> such as Reptilia sensu Linnaeus NOT monophyletic and therefore not
> clades?

 Ahem... Linnaeus (1758) erected "Reptiles" for turtles, frogs,
 non-snake non-anguid squamates, and crocodiles, but "Reptilia" was
 created by Laurenti (1768) as "Reptilium" for frogs, urodels,
 gymnophiones, squamates, and crocodiles.

In the interest of proper pedantry, Linnaeus (1758) did use "Amphibia reptilia" as a running header, but the actual headline is indeed "Reptiles" (for an order of the class "Amphibia"); and he didn't count "non-snake non-anguid squamates" and "crocodiles" separately, instead he lumped all crocodiles into the species *Lacerta crocodilus* (and, while I am at it, all salamanders into *Lacerta salamandra*).

This has been your dose of obsessive-compulsive disorder for today. See you tomorrow, same channel... :-)