Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

George,
    I couldn't agree more.  And it's even more clear since someone (I'm not 
sure who) has given these "included clades" a name (exgroups).  And clearer 
yet if you leave behind a marker for the exgroup within the inclusive clade 
(which renders its informationally complete---- or semi-holophyletic).
    This is just "informative" cross-referencing, and any analogies to 
being partially pregnant completely miss the point.  If you formally remove 
an included clade (exgroup) you should leave a marker there to document it.  
Cladists get their sister group information, eclecticists can have exgroups, 
and everyone's needs should be accomodated in a single classificaton system 
(once we finally shake off the notion that this is not possible).
                ---Ken Kinman
**********************************************************
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:35:25 EDT
>
> In a message dated 5/11/01 5:09:35 PM EST, david.marjanovic@gmx.at writes:
>
> << This is an example how the use of paraphyletic taxa can mislead. "Both"
> have
>  living descendants, so they aren't extinct, even though no actual members 
> of
>  the actual paraphyletic groups survive. >>
>
> This is not misleading; but it may be confusing because the paraphyletic
> groups under discussion have not been adequately defined. Define a
> paraphyletic group as the difference between an  inclusive clade and one or
> more of its included clades and there's no confusion.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com