[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- To: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:58:16 -0400
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <CAJ=SJBDy1R4CK1+CZN+bFfU4HBRe4qt=CQu1kh-FJS9Eehfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com><CAFGhNbPe7zNaH30Yv4=xx4DO9knxQf3Tab3TuYwy3U4UmZLb-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ=SJBDy1R4CK1+CZN+bFfU4HBRe4qt=CQu1kh-FJS9Eehfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Matthew Martyniuk
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:22 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
> To be fair, this again depends on how you define Aves. The
> oldest phylogenetic definition published for Aves is an
> apomorphy-based on anchored on the presence of feathers
> (Charig, 1985). In this usage (which is just as valid as any
> other pre-PhyloCode), feathers are not only a fundamental
> avian attribute, they are the *defining* attribute of Aves.
> (How you define 'feather' is another story).
I find it highly unlikely that Charig defined ANYTHING phylogenetically! What
is his actual statement? I suspect it something more
along the line of "Aves is defined by the presence of feathers"; if so, that is
simply traditional pre-cladistic gradistic
classification. On the other hand, a statement along the lines of "Aves is that
entire branch of the tree of life descended from the
first feathered animal", that is a fairer claim to a phylogenetic defintion.