Re: ptero and bat origins

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu> wrote:

> I'm not arguing that whales are not related to those species traditionally 
> included in Artiodactyla (see above: "Cetacea is a subclade of 
> Artiodactyla").  What I meant in the second sentence was:  if Artiodactyla 
> is actually *paraphyletic* with respect to Cetacea, as seems possible, then 
> "Cetartiodactyla" as a name is unnecessary:  Cetacea would merely be 
> subsumed under Artiodactyla.

Oh, definitely.  I agree wholeheartedly.  It's like changing the name of 
Dinosauria to Avedinosauria simply because birds are a subgroup of 
dinosaurs.

> Even if traditional Artiodactyla and Cetacea are sister-groups, I think
> Paraxonia sounds better than Cetartiodactyla :-)

Alas, euphony isn't a major criterion for coining new names for clades.  Nor 
is logic, on many occasions.  Thus we have (in some phylogenies) Eusuchia as 
a subgroup of Pseudosuchia.



Tim


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus