[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: keesey@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 8:01 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?
> 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 
separate creation".



> 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
> Neognathae)?
> --
> T. Michael Keesey
> http://tmkeesey.net/