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".