Re: crocodylians, amphibians ... (was Sarcosuchus)

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>      Crocodilia/Crocodylia is a completely different matter, as this taxon
> has long included a more inclusive "crocodyliform" content,

true AFAIK (not that I claim I know anything about crocodylomorphs)

> and it is the
> fault of strict cladists for restricting the usage of this term.

No, of crown-groupers. All crown-groupers are "strict cladists" but not vice
versa. Personally I don't particularly like crown-group Crocodylia but I can
certainly live with it. After all crocodylomorphs are not my
business/interest. :-|

> And try explaining to your fellow non-cladists (much less
> the public) the differences between tetrapods and stegocephalians, and
watch
> their eyes roll or glaze over.

I haven't tried that, but I'm really sure people would just nod and believe
it. You can take anything and tell people it's either a reptile or an
amphibian, and they'll believe it as long as you sound you know it. Everyone
I explained that salamanders are neither lizards nor "reptiles" in general
has taken my mere word for it so far. Yes, people learn in school (at least
sometimes) how to tell "reptiles" and amphibians apart, but don't you think
they remember that later.
        Likewise, I believe people will believe you when you tell them about
*Sarcosuchus* "well, it looks like a crocodile, it behaved like a crocodile,
but it was only nearly a crocodile" and say "strange animal", not "strange
scientists". Most are much too confused about the _two_ meanings of
"crocodile", Crocodylidae and Crocodylia, and most won't be able to tell a
salamander apart from a lizard!

It has been decades ago when Stegocephali(a) was last used before its recent
reintroduction. At that time it was a rhizome wastebasket like Thecodontia
or Cotylosauria. _Nobody_ remembers that or has heard the term at all.

>      As I have said before, cladistic splintering and redefinitions

Not _re_definitions. What cladists do are _definitions_ in the first place.
Amphibia etc. didn't have any definition before.

> will inevitably lead to an increasing backlash from both the public

"The public" has never heard of cladistics. It's as simple as that. Neither
does "the public" know about the Linnaean hierarchy. The worst scenario that
is anything like possible is that "the public" will say "those _scientists_
are weirdos, they try to tell us that it looks perfectly like a croc and
isn't one" and similar things aimed at every specific case. I don't think
even this is likely.

> and a very
> large silent majority of scientists who are really sick of it.

Most of the _few_ biologists I know (about) at the university here "don't
even ignore" cladistics. One or two paleontologists seem to think that it's
just an American fashion, but they don't know much about cladistics at all
AFAIK. But I don't know anyone who is sick of it/feels like a victim of peer
pressure from cladists.