Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: Possible source, please considder! |
|||
Line 145:
::::I've located one useful reference (it's a book talking about evolution being supported by the fossil record), although it doesn't have quite everything. Actually, I am beginning to think that discussing it in terms of [[crown group]] versus stem group species may be better than "basal taxa" and "sister taxa". [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::There's actually two problems with using crown-stem to explain this: One is that transitional fossils do not necessarily have any crown-group (an hypothetical ur-trilobite for instance, or a transitional critter between primitive and advanced pterosaurs) and thus no stem group either, the other is that what this sentence is conveying is really that the cladistic method can not identify a transitional fossil, much less an actual ancestral one. A true ancestor, let's say a true ancestral bird, would just end up like a sister group to the birds, just like ''Archaeopteryx''. Crown and stem should be mentioned though. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
'''Found it!'''
I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's [http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/tetrapoda/amphibians.html Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics] from [[Palaeos]] website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos ''is'' considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
===Additional Notes===
| |||