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

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 8/22/06, Martin Baeker <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Shouldn't there be a clear-cut systematic way to talk about the set
> "bony fish" without Tetrapodes? Do you really say that this grouping
> is worthless because we know of perhaps a handfull of fossils (from
> probably more than 50000 fish species known all together) that would
> be difficult to place? Isn't it intellectually even more misleading to
> tell people: No there is no such thing as bony fish, unless you
> include humans?

By labelling only clades, phylogenetic nomenclature actually allows
for better discussion of paraphyletic groups. You could talk about:
- non-tetrapodan osteichthyans (or teleostomes)
- non-tetrapodan chordates
- non-actinopterygian chordates
- primarily aquatic craniates
- gilled gnathostomes
- non-amniote vertebrates
- non-neopterygian actinopterygians

Basically, any paraphyletic grouping that is delimited by clades is
available for discussion. Of course, these phrases are a bit
long-winded, but there are handy informal ways of referring to some of
them. Nothing prevents you from using "bony fish" (although one
parenthesis explaining that you mean non-tetrapodan osteichthyan would
not be amiss).
--
T. Michael Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com