No such thing as "OSTEICHTHYES"

[Ken Kinman]

John,
    No reminder needed.  I do follow Nelson generally, except that I
recognize 9 classes instead of 8, since I demoted Conodonts from phylum
status to a class within Phylum Chordata.  I do not formally recognize
"Osteichthyes", and certainly not "Pisces".  I guess I should have stated
that explicitly, instead of just implying it by the reference to
sarcopterygians being treated as a class.
    By the way, does anyone have any up-to-date information on which of the
agnathans the conodonts are most related to?  Are hagfishes still considered
the most likely living relatives or does it remain pretty much
controversial?
                       ---------Ken Kinman
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Ken Kinman wrote
> > P.S.  Speaking of osteichthyes, the "fish" cladists may be happy to hear
>that I classify virtually all of their groups cladistically, although I had
>little choice but to treat Class Sarcopterygea as a semi-paraphyletic group
>(with a marker for its Tetrapod descendants).
>   John Bruner responded:
>As a "fish" cladist, I must remind you that the term "OSTEICHTHYES" is no
>longer recognized.  Currently, 8 classes of fishes are recognized, 3 in the
>Superclass Agnatha and 5 in the Superclass Gnathostomata.  Your
>"OSTEICHTHYES" = roughly the Grade [between Superclass and Class]
>Teleostomi are divided into Classes Acanthodi, Sarcopterygii, and
>Actinopterygii.  For a 5 year-old, widely used fish classification scheme,
>I suggest the following reference.  Nelson, Joseph Schiesser.  1994.
>Fishes of the World.  3rd edition.  Another outdated term is "PISCES".

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com