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

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

Nick Pharris writes:
 >> 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".

Think carefully about why you would want to talk about a group such as
Tetrapoda.  What would it gain you?  In most ways, _Acanthostega_ is
much more similar to _Panderichthys_ and _Tiktaalik_ than it is to
_Mus_, and that fact is *obscured* by the recognition of a formal
taxon equivalent to "tetrapods".

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Old age is fifteen years older than I am" -- Oliver Wendell
         Holmes.