Re: Dromomeron and Lagerpeton query

[David Peters <davidrpeters@charter.net>]

Then, Mike, by definition, your Diapsida is redundant with Amniota and  
Reptilia. Linneaus 1758 may have precedence over all.
It's one problem after another when you get down to it.

David Peters

On Jul 19, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:

> 2009/7/19 David Peters <davidrpeters@charter.net>:
> > > To find out if Nesbitt et al. screwed up by assuming the  
> > > pterosaurs are
> > > part of their ingroup, you need to conduct a bigger analysis, say  
> > > with the
> > > crown of Diapsida as the ingroup and the araeoscelidians as the  
> > > outgroup,
> > > for example.
> >
> > This is assuming the traditional "crown group Diapsida" is  
> > monophyletic,
> > which has never been tested.
>
> That's because its monophyletic by definition.  "Crown group Diapsida"
> means the most recent common ancestor of all extant diapsids together
> with all its descendants.  It's not something you can test, any more
> than you can test that acute angles are less than 90 degrees.