>>>>Actually, there is no circumstance in which a group that consists of only birds and frogs (and nothing else) could be considered paraphyletic, so it is not necessary to be ambiguous.

>>

>>The other circumstances I suggested would include OTHER TAXA.>>



In this case, it is clear from the beginning that no other taxa are involved.



>> This particular case is clear.>>



Absolutely, and that is what I said. There is no circumstance in which a group that consists of only birds and frogs (and nothing else) could be considered paraphyletic.



>> But sometimes it is unclear whether a grouping is paraphyletic or polyphyletic.>>



That is hard to believe. A group is paraphyletic if it shares a nearest common ancestor. If it does not share a nearest common ancestor, then it is polyphyletic. If you do not know whether it is polyphyletic or paraphyletic, then you also do not know whether it is monophyletic or not. Hence a cladist cannot claim that he/she knows anything in such a case. To then suggest that such a group is "not monophyletic" is to assert what is not actually known.



>> Under those circumstances the use of the term non-monophyletic is completely appropriate, not "dishonest".>>



I disagree. It is not only dishonest, but also unscientific because science is based on the available evidence. To go ahead and disqualify taxa on the basis of such lack of evidence would be tragic and also not scientific.



>>You sure have a big ship on your shoulder, CKing.>>



To assert that I have a chip on my shoulder is to assert the unknown. That is again not scientific.

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