Re: Dimetrodon

[Mark Sumner <range@inlink.com>]

Nicholas J. Pharris wrote:

> If you're advocating a typological taxonomy rather than a phylogenetic
> one (let's see...  I think this caecilian, this snake, this
> amphisbaenid, and this glass lizard look and act similar enough...), then
> the above is relevant.  But if your goal is accurate representation of
> evolutionary events, then where you personally would draw the line is
> irrelevant.

I'd certainly not go that far (Though working with fossil species, it
is tempting.  Esp. when presented with a set of fossils that don't seem
to fit anywhere else.)  But I'd contend that an arrangement based 
purely on cladistics can be equally ridiculous. 

However, I think we're arguing a point (an argument 99.5% my fault) 
which Steve has already solved with a rewrite more elegant than my 
original suggestion.

I'll lay low on mammal-like reptiles, content in the knowledge that
every discredited theory in paleo will cycle around to being the
norm given another ten years. <g>

Mark
---- 
Visit my home page at http://www.greyware.com/authors/Sumner 
or check out the DEVIL'S TOWER Preview page at 
http://www.inlink.com/~range