Re: Strange thoughts on PN - was Re: BAD vs. BADD

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> For pratical purposes, it is, I think, in many cases. That's what all
> of this argument is about. Canidae are a rather clear-cut group
> now-adays, as are primates, perissodactlys or whatever.

You say it -- nowadays. Extinction creates morphological gaps. Now that we 
have serious numbers of fossils, witness the debates on where to put names 
like Mammalia, Aves, Tetrapoda...

> Shouldn't there be a clear-cut systematic way to talk about the set
> "bony fish" without Tetrapodes?

You can always use "primarily aquatic", for example...