Re: A Wild Hare [not dino related]

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:

> > > > 2. I know that a basal primate, Plesiadapis, has a large diastema,
> > > > among other interesting characters.
> > >
> > > May not be a primate; possibly closer to dermapterans,
>
> Where exactly the plesiadapiforms lie is still not clear, but they're 
> the sister-group either to (the rest of) Primates or to (the rest of) 
> Dermoptera. (Dermaptera are the earwigs!)

Aagh!  He got me!  Shouldn't that be "Dermatoptera", anyway?

> > > though (AFAIK) still an archontan.
>
> Euarchontan, yes. (Archonta was the hypothesis that bats -- as a 
> whole --  are related to Primates + Dermoptera + Scandentia, based on 
> eye anatomy and I don't know what else.)

Yes, but I hate the idea of having a taxonomic system that includes a 
"Euarchonta" without an "Archonta".  I prefer to use "Archonta" for 
'primates and their closest relatives' (these days, equals Primates, 
Scandentia, Derm_o_ptera, Rodentia, and Lagomorpha) and to say that it 
has been determined that bats are not, in fact, archontans after all.

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan