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

Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race



Are those supposed to be analogous examples? Pachyderma was
paraphyletic: it grouped together animals which looked similar but
were not close relatives. Tuatara are kept separate because they
*have* no close living relatives. Would you rather we create a
pachyderm-like paraphyletic grouping of say, Tuatara+Iquana based on
superficial similarity?

Matt

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:53:47 -0400
>> From: schenck.rob@gmail.com
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US 
>> presidential race
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  We've demolished groups such as Pachyderma, relocating its members (rhinos, 
> elephants, etc) to their true relatives...and yet the tuatara, aardvark and 
> pangolin are set aside in their own groups with no near extant relatives.
>
>
>
> so, if there is no way to quantify it, why do we keep them separate?