[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