Talk:Cephalopoda

From Palaeos.org

Jump to: navigation, search
(Phylogeny(Dendrogram))
Line 34: Line 34:
:Thanks for your comments, John. The reference list includes the sources for the names listed in the dendrogram. I've changed the heading "References" to "Dendrogram Sources" to make this clearer - hopefully, as I track down those names in more appropriate sources, I'll be able to eliminate the less appropriate references.
:Thanks for your comments, John. The reference list includes the sources for the names listed in the dendrogram. I've changed the heading "References" to "Dendrogram Sources" to make this clearer - hopefully, as I track down those names in more appropriate sources, I'll be able to eliminate the less appropriate references.
:An artificial classification is one that has been composed on the basis of a very small number of fairly superficial characters, without necessarily reflecting the true relationships of the organisms involved. For instance, nautiloids in the broad sense are largely united only by by their simple septa, a primitive feature that hides the high diversity of nautiloid body forms, and that some nautiloids are both more closely related and more similar to ammonoids than to other "nautiloids". I do disagree with your statement that "''Paraphyletic taxa allows derived forms to quite sensibly be given equal or even higher rank than their immediate ancestors. Otherwise there is the taxonomic problem of diminishing returns''". This is only potentially an issue if rank is a concern in the first place, and it is amply demonstrated that the use of ranks is positively misleading about diversity. No ranks - no problem.--[[User:Christopher|Christopher]] 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:An artificial classification is one that has been composed on the basis of a very small number of fairly superficial characters, without necessarily reflecting the true relationships of the organisms involved. For instance, nautiloids in the broad sense are largely united only by by their simple septa, a primitive feature that hides the high diversity of nautiloid body forms, and that some nautiloids are both more closely related and more similar to ammonoids than to other "nautiloids". I do disagree with your statement that "''Paraphyletic taxa allows derived forms to quite sensibly be given equal or even higher rank than their immediate ancestors. Otherwise there is the taxonomic problem of diminishing returns''". This is only potentially an issue if rank is a concern in the first place, and it is amply demonstrated that the use of ranks is positively misleading about diversity. No ranks - no problem.--[[User:Christopher|Christopher]] 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
==Nautiloidea "valid"?==
 +
 +
I've already noted my objections to regarding Nautiloidea as "valid". I'm not going to change John's usage of it in the article (I can't see that turning into anything other than a flame war, and I don't see how that would benefit anyone). But would "widely used" or "generally recognised" potentially be more neutral alternatives? [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] 07:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:32, 2 August 2009

Personal tools