[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Rép : Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals -- open access!!!
Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> I note that they phylogenetically define a number of clade names,
> including a few new ones:
Yes, the table of definitions is quite helpful. Among other things,
Ferae is restricted to the creodont+carnivoran clade, and Ostentoria
(which I'd never heard of previously, though it's not new) therefore
includes Pholidota (pangolins) and Ferae.
Also a number of other proposed clades are *not* used - thankfully.
Cetancodonta is used instead of Whippomorpha for the
hippopotamid+cetacean clade. Lagomorphamorpha is not used; the much
older Duplicidentata is used instead, which seems to approximate it in
> (Although Icaronycteris and
> Onychonycteris as a clade[!] of stem-microbats [not stem-bats!] is
> also odd.)
Yes; although apparently this topology is sensitive to the analysis
used. Bayesian recovers these two (_Icaronycteris_ and
_Onychonycteris_) as stem-chiropterans (stem-bats).
A similar thing happens to _Archaeopteryx_ vis-a-vis avialans (birds)
when Bayesian analysis is used, IIRC (from one study, anyway).