No such thing as "OSTEICHTHYES"
kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Sep 16 19:58:56 CDT 1999
No reminder needed. I do follow Nelson generally, except that I
recognize 9 classes instead of 8, since I demoted Conodonts from phylum
status to a class within Phylum Chordata. I do not formally recognize
"Osteichthyes", and certainly not "Pisces". I guess I should have stated
that explicitly, instead of just implying it by the reference to
sarcopterygians being treated as a class.
By the way, does anyone have any up-to-date information on which of the
agnathans the conodonts are most related to? Are hagfishes still considered
the most likely living relatives or does it remain pretty much
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Ken Kinman wrote
> > P.S. Speaking of osteichthyes, the "fish" cladists may be happy to hear
>that I classify virtually all of their groups cladistically, although I had
>little choice but to treat Class Sarcopterygea as a semi-paraphyletic group
>(with a marker for its Tetrapod descendants).
> John Bruner responded:
>As a "fish" cladist, I must remind you that the term "OSTEICHTHYES" is no
>longer recognized. Currently, 8 classes of fishes are recognized, 3 in the
>Superclass Agnatha and 5 in the Superclass Gnathostomata. Your
>"OSTEICHTHYES" = roughly the Grade [between Superclass and Class]
>Teleostomi are divided into Classes Acanthodi, Sarcopterygii, and
>Actinopterygii. For a 5 year-old, widely used fish classification scheme,
>I suggest the following reference. Nelson, Joseph Schiesser. 1994.
>Fishes of the World. 3rd edition. Another outdated term is "PISCES".
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Taxacom