Re: BCF (was New Article in Experimental Zoology)

[John Conway <john_conway@mac.com>]

On Monday, August 26, 2002, at 06:12  PM, T. Michael Keesey wrote:

> Since the crown clades match the original content of such clades as 
> _Aves_,
> _Mammalia_, _Crocodylia_, etc., and since their traditional usages 
> match the
> crown clades more closely than they do the stem-based clades, it makes 
> much
> much more sense to apply them to the crown clades than the stem-based 
> clades.
> They were originally named for extant forms -- why should it not 
> remain so?

But Gauthier's crown clade Aves excludes so many animals that most 
people would call birds. _Archaeopteryx_ + _ Vultur gryphus_ is not a 
crown clade as I understand it - but makes much more sense (the common 
sort anyhow).

Many people have big problems with any definition of Aves that excludes 
_Archaeopteryx_.


John Conway, Palaeoartist

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

Protosite: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/
Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/phylogenetic/