Taxa surviving end-Cretaceous extinction

Barry Roth barry_roth at YAHOO.COM
Mon Nov 15 09:06:48 CST 2004

I agree that knowing one's organisms is critical to a study of this kind.  There are unodubtedly a lot of arguable points in the presentation, but picking out the word "cladistic" is an unnecessary cheap shot.   "Cladistic association" is probably shorthand for "a phylogenetic relationship demonstrated by cladistic analysis" and such a phylogenetic relationship between a pre- and a post-Cretaceous taxon is absolutely necessary for one even to be able to ask, why/how did this clade survive the end-K event?  Cladistic analysis is the most powerful way of demonstrating such a relationship.  I applaud the author for recognizing that fact.

Barry Roth

Ken Kinman <kinman2 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Dear All,

There have been a lot of news reports on a recent presentation at the Denver geological conference, one which challenges the severity of the climactic impact of the asteroid at the end of the Cretaceous. Not that such challenges are unusual, but this one seems to be based on a series of doubtful suppositions, inferences, and rather dubious logic. Even the mention of the word cladistic (along with other scientific code words) will not transform rubbish into gems of wisdom, although it may fool many.

Do you Yahoo!?
 Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list