Re: Cladospeak (Mammalia, Crurotarsi)

["Matthew Bonnan" <mbonnan@hotmail.com>]

Dinogeorge writes:

"I thought groups were >defined< by phyletic relationship, not by
characters. There are no "group-defining traits" any more."

I'm not sure I follow you.  Please explain.  I am curious to know how a 
phyletic relationship (and thus the definition of a group) can be known 
without reference to specific characters, whether they be synapomorphies or 
not.  If there are no group-defining traits anymore, how does taxonomy or 
phylogeny work?  Supposedly, one needs group-defining traits in order to 
establish a group?  Are there other ways, apart from divine revelation or 
authoritarian say-so, to establish group identity without using 
group-defining traits?

"Groups may be
>diagnosed< by characters, but not defined by them. Unless of course you're
still supporting the idea of character-based groups..."

Again, I'm not sure I follow you.

Matt Bonnan

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp