[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladospeak (Mammalia, Crurotarsi)
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