Aves classification and cladistics / Gregory Paul
pierre.deleporte at UNIV-RENNES1.FR
Mon Sep 16 17:19:58 CDT 2002
More seriously (than my previous post), it would be interesting to check
this "Aves" example a little bit more. The following comments (in the
dinoarch list) raise two points : the cladistic method would not be
involved per se in the "mistake", and a plea for integrating different
As far as I understand the problem, there is no strong cladistic resolution
due to a lot of homoplasy, and fossil "transition series" may be interpreted;
also, some homologies may have been overlooked ("hallux" problem), but this
is not a "cladistic" recommendation at all, just the possible weight of
received wisdom, as possible in any approach.
These are different questions, and to take just one : I know of "cladists"
(and just here in Rennes University paleontology dept) who are ready to
take fossil series ("as read in the rocks") into account when they are
deemed fairly "complete". This the more when cladistic resolution is
doubtful or lacking.
Isn't the problem one of integrating complementary approaches, and which to
be more relied on in cases of contradictions, depending on the relative
"strength" of historical signal issuing from these complementary approaches
? And how to assess objectively this relative reliability...
Also : clearly distinguish "cladistics" as phylogeny reconstruction
methods) from cladistic classification (strict of relaxed...). Seems that
G. Paul, in this paper, aims at the former, not the latter.
A 19:54 13/09/2002 +0000, Ken Kinman wrote :
(...) Here's a link to Gregory's post for those who wish
to read it:
--- Cheers, Ken Kinman
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
CNRS UMR 6552 - Station Biologique de Paimpont
F-35380 Paimpont FRANCE
Téléphone : 02 99 61 81 66
Télécopie : 02 99 61 81 88
More information about the Taxacom