[Taxacom] Reptilia (was: New lizard species)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Kim, 
       I'm not entirely sure if you were serious or joking
about classifying mammals as reptiles. Most strict cladists want to do
that only with the birds, but they almost always insist on excluding
mammals (as well as mammal-like reptiles) from the Reptilia. Frankly I
don't like either idea (the traditional Reptilia is just fine unless one
was been taught that all paraphyletic taxa are bad). 
          Traditionalists have long known (after
Archaeopteryx was discovered) that birds were reptile descendants, as
well as mammals being reptile descendants. Those discoveries long
preceded molecular tools, so molecular data simply confirmed the
morphological data. Now that we have lots of molecular data, we need to
increasing start on that side, and then confirm with new morphological
data. They should go hand-in-hand, and it is short-sighted to act like
molecular tools are the only way "to do things properly". Many on this
list clearly believe that the authors of those new lizard species made
mistakes because of an over-reliance on molecular data.  The ICZN
continues to evolve to keep up with new tools (e.g., genome sequencing
and the Internet), but it should do so carefully and with the long term
in mind.  It is not that it can't keep up, but rather that it best to be
conservative, rather than charge ahead in haste as PhyloCode is doing.       
            Anyway, traditionalists long knew
that Class Reptilia was paraphyletic with respect to Class Aves and
Class Mammalia. Cladistics is increasingly a wonderful tool for studying
phylogeny, but "strict" cladism has unfortunately done a lot of damage
as well, by insisting that holophyletic taxa are always more informative
than paraphyletic taxa. Their war against paraphyletic taxa has gone too
far and is increasingly doing damage to classifications simply because
of the widespread perception that paraphyletic taxa are automatically
and always bad (uninformative and/or unnatural). 
            Worse yet, they hijacked the names
of high-ranking paraphyletic taxa, such as Reptilia (which they
redefined to include birds, and also to exclude mammal-like reptiles).
Saying that "birds are reptiles", rather than "birds are reptile
descendants" is just a matter of classificatory philosophy. Therefore,
it is just as proper to classify birds (Class Aves) as reptile
DESCENDANTS, not as part of Class Reptilia itself. As for feathers, I
now include most "feathered" dinosaurs in Class Aves, as it is truly
old-fashioned to regard Archaeopteryx as the first bird. 
                    ---------Ken
Kinman 
--------------------------------------------------------        
Kim van der Linde wrote: 
              Birds will be finally properly
classified as reptiles with feathers, and mammals as reptiles with
hairs. Finally, we can get rid of these historical artifacts introduced
by good-meaning scientists who just didn't have the tools to do things
properly. Sure, the traditionalists will keep protesting while their
beloved taxa are dismantled. But now that we have the tools, and
especially soon when we can do a genome for $100 in one day, the
old-fashioned ways of actually looking at characters will be just that,
old-fashioned. Better start learning proper DNA-speak.... 
Kim
PS LOL