Re: "Cetiformes" and Dinosauriformes

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

Mickey,
    Well, I did say that cetaceans are probably holophyletic.  But I am 
obviously  somewhat skeptical about a number of different "holophyletic" 
groups--- slightly skeptical about cetaceans and dinosaurs, but more so 
about some others.
    When I told people I was going to take scorpions out of Class 
Arachnidea, some people thought my new Class Scorpionea was a little wacky.  
But several years later fossil evidence showed that scorpions and 
eurypterids do share a key synapomorphy to the exclusion of other arachnids 
(my Class Arachnidea).
    And if Romer, Simpson, and others were still living, they might well 
continue their in their belief that dinosaurs are polyphyletic, even given 
all the modern evidence we now have.  In fact they might even criticize me 
for coding Ornithischiformes and Saurischiformes as sister groups---who 
knows.
    Maybe I should have been born in Missouri (the "Show Me" State), 
instead of Kansas.  But I really didn't become such a cynic and skeptic 
until I was a Junior in college.   But those who know me well realize that 
there is usually some "method in my madness".
    If some of my ideas provoke some laughter that is okay too (we could 
use a little of that these days).  But people laughed when Conway-Morris 
presented his reconstruction of Opabinia.  It is a strange looking animal, 
but I still think it is probably either a dwarf male or immature form of 
Anomalocaris.  Regarded as one of my wackier ideas, but I still find it 
amazing that people reject it without any particular reason other than it 
sounds wacky.
    But then again, you won't hear me claiming that Longisquama has 
feathers, or that dinosaurs evolved the astragalar ascending process five 
separate times (Feduccia, 1996).  I really do try to be fair and open-minded 
in spite of my skepticism, and only time will tell if some of my wackier 
ideas have any merit.  But if by chance mysticetes and odontocetes did have 
different ungulate ancestors, I will have the last laugh.  Stranger things 
have happened.
               ---------Ken  :-)
*******************************************
> From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>
> Reply-To: Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com
> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: "Cetiformes" and Dinosauriformes
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:24:36 -0700
>
> Ken Kinman wrote-
>
> >      Even though I am more of a lumper than a splitter (in general), in
> this
> > case, I felt that there was a definite possibility that whales could be
> > polyphyletic (diphyletic).
>
> LOL
> That comment introduced some much needed laughter into my day Ken.
> Polyphyletic cetaceans?!  No wonder you question the monophyly of 
> dinosaurs,
> segnosaurs, troodontids, etc..  If you aren't nearly certain Cetacea is
> monophyletic, there's no hope.  I can virtually assure you all
> mammalogists/phylogeneticists think Cetacea is monophyletic.
> Polyphyletic cetaceans..... :-D
>
> Mickey Mortimer


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