You claim that "species and or clades with distinctive apomorphies" are "natural objects." You also claim that species can be paraphyletic. Then you claim that paraphyletic taxa are "imaginary." How can a species, which is both paraphyletic and natural, be imaginary?



I agree with you that taxonomy is important for communication both among scientists and between scientists and the general public. A term such as reptile is universally understood among both scientists and the general public. By redefining reptiles to include birds, some taxonomists have made communication more difficult. Further, since mammals are also descended from a reptile, the exclusion of the mammals from the Reptilia creates a paraphyletic basal group of primitive amniotes, which were once considered reptiles but is not a paraphyletic group without a name. This paraphyletic group is still part of Amniota, but it now has no name, making it impossible for scientists who adhere to this sort of cladistic absurdity to communicate with each other. This is madness, not progress.



If clades are natural, how come we can no longer classify some groups (such as the paraphyletic basal amniotes) if we recognize other groups such as mammals and Gauthier's "Reptilia"?

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]