Re: mammal definition (was "Fossil Discovery Threatens")

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/25/00 8:51:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
kinman@hotmail.com writes:

> The "crown-group" cladistic definition was a dumb idea to begin with, 
>  being anchored on the monotremes which have a dismal fossil record.  I've 
>  even heard cladists distancing themselves from this dubious definition.

I don't know that it's necessarily a dumb idea to recognize the living 
mammals as a group (these are the ones we have on hand to study, after all; 
perhaps Neomammalia would be a better term)--it just doesn't jube with the 
definition of Mammalia that most workers accept.

Nick P.