Re: Dinofest Report #2 (and final)

["Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <th81@umail.umd.edu>]

At 06:29 AM 4/27/98 -0400, Johnathon Woolf wrote:

Okay, I know I just posted that I didn't want to see this debate take over
the net, but I came across a very curious statement I thought I out to
correct, since Woolf really ought to know better.

>>         5) That the character evolved more than once does not imply that
>> some or all of the taxa formerly included in the group don't still
>> constitute a clade exclusive of other taxa.
>
>Irrelevant to my original point: if the characteristic for which the taxon
was named
>is not a synapomorphy for ALL species within the taxon, the name is
inconsistent
>with the facts.

Too bad about "Tetrapoda": we have to abandon it because of those nasty
two-limbed sirenians, whales, etc. and no-limbed snakes.

Too bad about "Carnivora": stupid pandas.

Too bad about "Edentata": silly sloths retaining their teeth...

Too bad about "Ornithopoda": all those horrible four-toed basal forms.

Too bad about "Dinosauria": how dare those compsognathids not be scary
because they are big (aka "fearfully great")!

>Sometimes I wish dinosaur paleontologists were more like 'amphibian'
paleontologists
>-- they at least have the honesty to admit they haven't a clue about how modern
>amniotes and modern amphibians are related to each other or to the basal
tetrapod
>groups like the labyrinthodonts.

Maybe you'd like to check out the Tree of Life website by Michel Laurin, and
references therein?

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661