[008]
silver1881
Current Version
Changed line(s) 4 from:
n
It seems like the second one is the standard, so I plan to start consolidating them. If no one has any objections, I\'ll move anything missing from #1 to #2. However, I don\'t know how to close a page, or if it should be closed. Thoughts?
to:
It looks like everything from #1 is also on #2. Is there a way to close #1, so there isn\\\'t a superfluous page?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\", shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... :-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodont\\\" archosauromorphs from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while the \\\"non-thecodont\\\" Tanystropheus, Rhynchosaurs and the enigmatic Longisquama were not; while the croc-like Choristoderan deserved a separate mention in my opinion, because they were not true pre-dinos.
p.s. Thecodonts are not polyphyletic, but make a natural group (the \\\"Archosauriformes\\\") if you include their descendents as well, exactly like Synapsid if you consider \\\'\\\'mammals\\\'\\\' within. [[http://www.luomus.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauromorpha.htm This link]] explains why.
p.s. Thecodonts are not polyphyletic, but make a natural group (the \\\"Archosauriformes\\\") if you include their descendents as well, exactly like Synapsid if you consider \\\'\\\'mammals\\\'\\\' within. [[http://www.luomus.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauromorpha.htm This link]] explains why.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\", shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... :-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodont\\\" archosauromorphs from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while the \\\"non-thecodont\\\" Tanystropheus, Rhynchosaurs and the enigmatic Longisquama were not; while the croc-like Choristoderan deserved a separate mention in my opinion, because they were not true pre-dinos.
p.s. Thecodonts are not poliphyletic, but make a natural group (the \\\"Archosauriformes\\\") if you include their descendents as well, exactly like Synapsid if you consider \\\'\\\'mammals\\\'\\\' within. [[http://www.luomus.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauromorpha.htm This link]] explains why.
p.s. Thecodonts are not poliphyletic, but make a natural group (the \\\"Archosauriformes\\\") if you include their descendents as well, exactly like Synapsid if you consider \\\'\\\'mammals\\\'\\\' within. [[http://www.luomus.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauromorpha.htm This link]] explains why.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\", shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... :-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodont\\\" archosauromorphs from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while the \\\"non-thecodont\\\" Tanystropheus, Rhynchosaurs and the enigmatic Longisquama were not; while the croc-like Choristoderan deserved a separate mention in my opinion, because they were not true pre-dinos.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that category such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\", shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... :-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodont\\\" archosauromorphs from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while the \\\"non-thecodont\\\" Tanystropheus, Rhynchosaurs and the enigmatic Longisquama aren\\\'t; and scientist still are not sure to 100% that Choristoderans were archosauromorphs, for the latter science may march on again...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that category such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that category such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\" shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... :-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodonts\\\" from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts perhaps Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while Tanystropheus and Rhynchosaurs aren\\\'t; and scientist still are not sure to 100% that Champsosaurus etc. were archosauromorphs, for the latter science may march on again...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that category such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that category such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\" shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn...:-) I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodonts\\\" from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts perhaps Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while Tanystropheus and Rhynchosaurs aren\\\'t; and scientist still are not sure to 100% that Champsosaurus etc. were archosauromorphs, for the latter science may march on again...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well... One could also say that category such as \
to:
Well... One could also say that category such as \\\"Amphibians\\\" and \\\"Mammal-like reptiles\\\" shouldn\\\'t be created since TaxonomyMarchesOn... I\\\'ve willingly chosen the traditional wiew since \\\"thecodonts\\\" from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts perhaps Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while Tanystropheus and Rhynchosaurs aren\\\'t; and scientist still are not sure to 100% that Champsosaurus etc. were archosauromorphs, for the latter science may march on again...
