[Taxacom] paraphylophobia again

Stephen Thorpe s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Sun Jul 19 16:05:57 CDT 2009

To Curtis and Kenneth,
I was not saying that either Protista, or Reptilia, etc. were  
paraphyletic "remainders" - they are not! They might HAVE paraphyletic  
remainders once you sort out all the monophyletic subgroups of each of  
them. To retain a paraphyletic "Reptilia" has nothing to do with  
"remainders", but rather simply ignores the fact that Mammalia and  
Aves both clearly belong to monophyletic subgroups of "Reptilia".

Quoting Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>:

> On 2009-07-19 00:58, Richard Pyle wrote:
>> Wow!  Having just read Ken's comment, and your reply, I see that the three
>> of us (at least) appear to be very harmonious in our perspective on this
>> topic. I probably should have just stayed out of the conversation....
> Reptilia and Protista are awfully big paraphyletic remainders.
> Oh, and I wish Ken would stop blaming the cladists for the three
> domains. Archaebacteria in many trees are paraphyletic.
> --
> Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
> University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list