Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ghost lineages!
Topic Started: Jun 21 2017, 06:59 AM (1,825 Views)
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata - its nothing too important just phylogenetic autism. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but they do turn up as stem protostomes (Nielsen) or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that bit already.)
Edited by kusanagi, Jul 27 2017, 10:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:04 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
I did. I didn't get anything helpful with regard to the question.
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Velociraptor
Member Avatar
Reptile
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
What about marsupials? Australia has been isolated from all other continents for 96 million years, so they had to have made it there by the Cretaceous, and genetic evidence suggests that marsupials diverged from placentals about 160 million years ago, yet the earliest definitive marsupial fossil is from the Paleocene of Montana.
Posted Image

Unnamed No K-Pg project: coming whenever, maybe never. I got ideas tho.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:08 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:04 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
I did. I didn't get anything helpful with regard to the question.
Well if Rotifera and Acathocephalia are defined to exclude on another, Acanthocepalia cannot just be sunk within Rotifera. The point of PT is to seperate diagnosis/concept from definition but it fails on psychological grounds as clade usage usually gets dropped if their familiar content and therefore concept changes. All the same that's how it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:20 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:08 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:04 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
I did. I didn't get anything helpful with regard to the question.
Well if Rotifera and Acathocephalia are defined to exclude on another, Acanthocepalia cannot just be sunk within Rotifera. The point of PT is to seperate diagnosis/concept from definition but it fails on psychological grounds as clade usage usually gets dropped if their familiar content and therefore concept changes. All the same that's how it is.
Yes, acanthocephala can just be sunk within rotifer. If rotifera is defined by ancestry (last common ancestor of extant rotifers), then that would include acanthocephala. If it where defined based on characteristics, then it would also include acanthocephala. Why make new terms when you can just slight adjust old ones?
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:24 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:20 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:08 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:04 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
I did. I didn't get anything helpful with regard to the question.
Well if Rotifera and Acathocephalia are defined to exclude on another, Acanthocepalia cannot just be sunk within Rotifera. The point of PT is to seperate diagnosis/concept from definition but it fails on psychological grounds as clade usage usually gets dropped if their familiar content and therefore concept changes. All the same that's how it is.
Yes, acanthocephala can just be sunk within rotifer. If rotifera is defined by ancestry (last common ancestor of extant rotifers), then that would include acanthocephala. If it where defined based on characteristics, then it would also include acanthocephala. Why make new terms when you can just slight adjust old ones?
Because stem based is better than node based. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:39 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:24 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:20 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 10:08 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 10:04 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:54 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 09:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 09:26 PM
One node back? Hagfish have remnants of vertebra and are vertebrates.

So if so much evidence points to hemichordates being an invalid clade, why don't they change it? We finally establish acanthocephala as a part of rotifera*, so why not this? But xenoturbellids are basal bilaterians* and chaetognaths are basal protostomes*.

Dammit. DAMMIT! I though protostomes where the confusing one! Deuterostomes where supposed to be the fine and dandy ones while protostomes kept hopping around. BuT nOoOoOoOoO! Stupid hemichordates had to mess everything up!

You know what we need? A big, wide scale cladistic analysis of dueterostomes and possible dueterostomes. It needs to include homalozoans, enteropneusts, pterobranchs, pikia, cephalochordates, tunicates, euconodonts, paraconodonts, brachiozoans, hagfish, lampreys, ,some gnathostomes, tullimonstrum, vetulicolians, chaetognaths, xenacoelamorphs, some protostomes, and a cnidarian outgroup.



*lemme guess, that's not true either
I am not sure acanthocephlians are within rotifers: there are problems with the idea of deriving them from the specialised rotifers. Technically the clade would be Syndermata and Seisonida would be removed from Rotifera to become the outgroup to Rotifera + Acanthocephalia. And Gnathostomata + Hyperoartia is Vertebrata, Vertebrata + Myxini is Craniata. Chaetognaths are still possibly deuterostome but do turn up as stem protostomes or even the sister of ecdysozoans. They are an odd group with no definite missing link since candidates Oesia and Amiskwia are too uncertain and remain nephrozoa incertae sedis like the chaetognths themselves. Xenocoelomates could be anywhere within Bilateria honestly since it is impossible to assume they are genuinely primitive else became a flatworm from some comples nephrozoan ancestor. (I explained that already.)
How would acanthocephalans being rotifers remove seisonids from the group? I always found "syndermata" to be pointless. Just include acanthocephala within rotifera.


And as for craniates. Palaeospondylus has a back bone. So if it is a stem hagfish, that would place palaeospondylus and hagfish within vertebrata.


Gosh, and people complain about dinosaurs having a confusing phylogeny.
Its about phylogenetic taxonomy. Google it. ;)
I did. I didn't get anything helpful with regard to the question.
Well if Rotifera and Acathocephalia are defined to exclude on another, Acanthocepalia cannot just be sunk within Rotifera. The point of PT is to seperate diagnosis/concept from definition but it fails on psychological grounds as clade usage usually gets dropped if their familiar content and therefore concept changes. All the same that's how it is.
Yes, acanthocephala can just be sunk within rotifer. If rotifera is defined by ancestry (last common ancestor of extant rotifers), then that would include acanthocephala. If it where defined based on characteristics, then it would also include acanthocephala. Why make new terms when you can just slight adjust old ones?
Because stem based is better than node based. ;)
1. No, it's not.

2 Even if rotifer was a crown based clade it would still include acanthocephalans
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Well if Rotifera are defined as a stem to be closer to oe another than to acanthocephalians there are former rotifers outside the clade. But the whole point of PT is pure semantics. ;) Sometimes this is awkward but it leaves less mess around.
Edited by kusanagi, Jul 27 2017, 11:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 11:13 PM
Well if Rotifera are defined as a stem to be closer to oe another than to acanthocephalians there are former rotifers outside the clade. But the whole point of PT is pure semantics. ;) Sometimes this is awkward but it leaves less mess around.
But that's not how rotifers are defined.
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 11:18 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 11:13 PM
Well if Rotifera are defined as a stem to be closer to oe another than to acanthocephalians there are former rotifers outside the clade. But the whole point of PT is pure semantics. ;) Sometimes this is awkward but it leaves less mess around.
But that's not how rotifers are defined.
Well I assume a stem definition else why were some rotifers removed from Rotifera.

Or do you mean the concept of rotifers is distinct from clsdistic definitions?
Edited by kusanagi, Jul 28 2017, 10:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IIGSY
Member Avatar
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Jul 28 2017, 09:39 AM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 27 2017, 11:18 PM
kusanagi
Jul 27 2017, 11:13 PM
Well if Rotifera are defined as a stem to be closer to oe another than to acanthocephalians there are former rotifers outside the clade. But the whole point of PT is pure semantics. ;) Sometimes this is awkward but it leaves less mess around.
But that's not how rotifers are defined.
Well I assume a stem definition else why were some rotifers removed from Rotifera.

Or do you mean the concept of rotifers is distinct from clsdistic definitions?
No rotifers where removed, acanthocephala was added.
Projects
Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates
Last one crawling: The last arthropod

ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess)

Potential ideas-
Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized.
Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal.
Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents.

Quotes


Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups


In honor of the greatest clade of all time


More pictures


Other cool things


All African countries can fit into Brazil
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Spec · Next Topic »
Add Reply