Re: Triassic mammal-like reptiles?

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:18:25 -0800 "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>
writes:
> On 11/8/05, John Hunt <john.bass@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Lets face it, it is a lot more comprehensible to the layman than 
> the more
> > correct names used by professionals.
> 
> But it's *incorrect*. "Mammal relative" is just as comprehensible 
> (if
> not moreso), more concise, and, to top it off, correct. (And, as 
> Tom
> Holtz mentioned, Bakker's "protomammal" is not half-bad, either.)


Very loosely, "protomammal" implies anagenesis, which most certainly
didn't occur in the earliest synapsids.  They were a bushy tree of
critters, most of which ended up as dead-end lineages.  The use of the
word "protomammal" only perpetuates the mistaken lay belief that any
randomly chosen "protomammal" can be considered a direct ancestor of
mammals.  Dimetrodon isn't a "protomammal" any more than a platypus is a
"protomarsupial".

Referring to Dimetrodon as a "mammal relative" is accurate and it is
correct.  But even dinosaurs are "mammal relatives", so perhaps the term
should be amended to "mammals' closest relatives".

<pb>
--