That's beside the point; those who do still don't care. It's clear
> from the recent papers that most authors want to treat _Ratitae_ as a > group that can be either monophyletic or non-monophyletic, so forcing > them to be monophyletic by definition (even when it entails a severe > violation of the traditional content of the group) isn't very > helpful.The definition Mike Keesey suggested would make Ratitae either monophyletic or _inexistent_ depending on the topology.