[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 08:56:12 -0700
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
> But they aren't "separate". Sphenodon* is in Lepidosauria, along with
> its extant sister group, Squamata.
But Sphenodon gets a number of (ranks?) above Genus to itself, was more my
point; apologies if anyone read my "separate" more in the vein of Darwin's "a
> The fact that they have large extant sister groups is simply an
> artifact of which groups went extinct.
I'm not worried about their sister groups.
> The fossil record has
> stem-tuataras, stem-aardvarks, and stem-pangolins.
> > (I don't know if there are any dinosaur equivilents of the aardvarks and
> > pangolins, cladistically speaking)
> Being a small extant taxon
...with several higher-than-Genus names to itself...
> with a much larger sister group? There are
> plenty of dinosaurian taxa like that.
> How about Struthio (sister to
> the rest of Palaeognathae), Anhimidae (sister to Anseres), or Coliidae
> (sister to the rest of Dendrornithes)? Or Palaeognathae (sister to
> T. Michael Keesey