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

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting Martin Baeker <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>:

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

Isn't "bony fish" clear enough?  Why put a formal label on it?

And think carefully about why you would want to talk about such a 
group.  What would it gain you?  In most ways, _Panderichthys_ and 
_Tiktaalik_ are much more similar to _Acanthostega_ than they are to 
_Salmo_, and that fact is *obscured* by the recognition of a formal 
taxon equivalent to "bony fish".

--
Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan

"Creativity is the sudden cessation of stupidity."
    --Edwin H. Land