"OSTEICHTHYES" (even cladists disagree)
kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue Sep 21 23:44:48 CDT 1999
Well, it's gratifying to see the cladists do not agree on this point
either. Perhaps this is additional evidence that the problems of strict
cladism has caused a further splintering of cladists into several feuding
camps. It certainly makes debating them a tricky proposition (no wonder
these threads are starting to give me a headache). Some camps don't seem to
realize that others still support Hennig's assumption of ancestral species
extinction (I'll try to find some specific examples in the literature to
On the specific point of "Osteichthyes", my fertile "middle ground"
seems to lie even between some cladist camps. I informally recognize
"Osteichthyes" in one of the addenda, but formally only recognize its two
constituent Classes (Actinopterygea and Sarcopterygea). This approach seems
to have made at least some of the cladists happy. Some cladists seem to
want to name a lot more nodes than others. Just adds to my impression that
cladists can be just as arbitrary as eclecticists, and that some kind of
reconciliation is imperative if we are ever going to see some lessening of
this endless bickering, so that systematics can become more productive and
>From: Tom DiBenedetto <tdib at UMICH.EDU>
>Reply-To: Tom DiBenedetto <tdib at UMICH.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: No such thing as "OSTEICHTHYES"
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:30:47 -0500
>John Bruner wrote:
> >As a "fish" cladist, I must remind you that the term "OSTEICHTHYES" is no
> >longer recognized.
>As another fish cladist, this is news to me!
> > 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
>But Osteichthys = Sarcopterygii + Actionopterygii, and is a monophyletic
>Teleostomi = Osteichthys + Acanthodii
>You are right about Pisces though!
> > 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.
> >Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York, USA. 600 pp.
>Very useful book, but definitly not a cladistic classification.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Taxacom