[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: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- From: Mike Taylor <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:03:07 +0100
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <C2391EFE99034F529EC762252F201C90@TYRANT>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAFGhNbPe7zNaH30Yv4=xx4DO9knxQf3Tab3TuYwy3U4UmZLb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
On 2 August 2011 13:58, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Matthew Martyniuk
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:22 AM
>> To: email@example.com
>> 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.
Surprisingly enough, what Charig (1985:26) actually wrote was "Let us
define a class Aves as the clade that is demarcated from its
antecedents by the appearance of the evolutionary novelty ‘feathers’"
(quoted from Senter 2005:4).
So, yeah, an explicit clade definition. Albeit not a very good one.