thoughts on which nodes to name

["Patrick Mellor" <patrickmellor@hotmail.com>]

    Is there any rigorous and non arbitrary reason to retain terms like 
'reptilia' and continue to try to squeeze old Linnean concepts into 
phylogenies, e.g. 'reptilia' is now basically defined as any non-synapsid 
amniote, this does not fit with the vernacular definition of the word 
reptile, and is misleading, to say the least, to non-specialists. Why not 
just scrap it as a term? Why, apart from an attempt to keep to tradition, is 
the node including all non synapsid amniotes except mesosaurs so important, 
and is there any non arbitrary way to decide which nodes to name without the 
lunacy of naming every node on every cladogram with slight variations of 
group names? Sorry for the slight rant :) Am writing an essay 'What is a 
Reptile' for a tutor and it is giving me a slight headache. Anyone here know 
of Dr Paul Barrett and his Sauropod work as an aside?

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com