[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





----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:17:06 -0400
> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential 
> race
> From: martyniuk@gmail.com
> To: keenir@hotmail.com
> CC: schenck.rob@gmail.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
>
> Are those supposed to be analogous examples?

 

 No.  Pachyderma was my aknowledging that Linnean groups can and have been 
taken apart and redistributed.

 

> 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.

 

 Which is my point.

 

I was countering the statements of what sounded like "distinctness can't be 
measured, at least not thus far", with examples of very distinct species.

 

 

> 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?        
> >